The thing I find interesting about this image is that it oversimplifies the argument (like all internet politics), but contains the definition of the root of the problem from the side opposite that which the author is on.
See we live in a world where our livelihoods are based on us having things to do for income. Maybe someday a fantasy utopia will get built where everybody lives a life of leisure and can spend all their time focusing on what they wish to, but right now that doesn't exist. So when everything is Made in China that means nothing is made anywhere else which means opportunities for work are reduced everywhere else. This is especially painful for people whose parents were well off because of the industry in the town they lived, only to lose those opportunities because the work went to China.
Now add to that the differences in approach between geopolitical Western and Eastern governments and you have the current argument.
Tik-tok is in the crosshairs because it's convenient. Western Governments, most particularly the US, like to talk up the Free Market. Woo, Free Market, no government interference yeah! So just reaching out and legislating trade or manufacturing flies in the face of their ideology (not to mention that their campaign contributions might dry up if they piss off the oligarchs who are making big bank by manufacturing in foreign lands). Tik-Tok however, is perfectly situated. It's run by foreigners who don't fund political campaigns, and it has a practice that is politically palatable to oppose: Collecting data about Americans and storing that data within the reach of an ideologically different government.
I've certainly heard this said before. Lately I've been thinking more about it as ads seem to be infecting more and more aspects of my life and so I've started to question it.
I've started to think that the whole "it makes you subconsciously think about the product when you're in the store" thing might just be made up by marketers. You know, the people whose jobs entirely depend on advertising being a good investment. That does kind of self-prove the point though, because if marketers just made it up and a bunch of people now think it's true, it follows that people will just absorb "information" if it's fed to them from the correct place.
I figured I'd see if I could find some science research on the subject. I managed to read through six studies (at least the abstracts and the methodologies) before my eyes glazed completely over and I needed to stop.
First I will say that none of them are able to draw links from advertising consumed to purchases made. The methodologies tend to focus on the immediate, how the ad makes a person feel in the moment. Generally this is done by asking people. Surveys and the like. The first one measured facial expressions and emotional responses. The PLOS one (fifth link) just asked marketing managers if their marketing was effective or not (and wow do they ever use a lot of words to say that, they turned their thesaurus up to 11). The second one is actually a bit of a side-bar in that it's specifically looking at the effectiveness of gamified advertising, but it does investigate brand memory based on different exposures. Again, just brand memory, not actual purchase behaviour.
And all that makes sense. It would be extremely difficult to build a study that manages to track every motivation for purchasing a given product, especially if some of those motivations aren't known by the purchaser. So what I'll say is that while it's likely that advertising can prod us one way or another, the wisdom that it's an effective subconscious driver of sales is not evidence based.
Do with that what you will.