[snackdex]

ngl, i think the fact that this is even possible and can get people is really dope.

I wish there were public studies like, 'We ran an experiment where young, attractive women wearing Polish clothing caused people who would naturally express these ideologies to stop scrolling more often than young, attractive women not wearing Polish clothing, for x demographic"

[BugsJustFindMe]

Something can be simultaneously "dope" and also very obviously extremely destructive to society if one looks past the tip of their nose. Let's try not to get too excited by those things.

[hattmall]

Not exactly the same, but I've seen some studies where people are shown things, art, music, people, cars, etc and asked to rate them.

Its very easy to influence their rating by showing them fake ratings from other people.

Additionally they can show who rated it a certain way and influence the test subjects ratings even more.

[xenospn]

It is scientifically proven that people don’t change channels on TV if the ad has a dog in it. I don’t see why this can’t apply to people on screen as well.

[snackdex]

i think what i'm getting at is fundamentally different...watching tv and scrolling through social media are distinct experiences.

When you scroll, the content is directly in front of you and you're actively controlling the flow (you decide whether to keep scrolling or stop).

With tv, the input is removed from you (you'd have to reach for the remote to change the channel) also channel flipping during ads isn't really a thing anymore.

So while the "dog in the ad" principle might work for tv where people are more passive and less likely to change the channel...i'm not sure it directly translates to phone scrolling, where you have more immediate control and are actively making micro-decisions about whether to keep scrolling or engage.