[HN Gopher] What if we made advertising illegal?
___________________________________________________________________
What if we made advertising illegal?
Author : smnrg
Score : 1684 points
Date : 2025-04-05 17:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (simone.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (simone.org)
| Terr_ wrote:
| Another approach with overlapping effects is to make companies
| extremely liable for misuse or mismanagement of personal
| information.
|
| There would still be advertising, and maybe even some
| personalized advertising, but in many cases they might decide the
| risk isn't worth it.
|
| It would also impact data-brokers and operations that don't
| strictly rely on direct-to-consumer advertising, like background
| checks, but credit scores, sales leads, etc.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I'm extremely skeptical that there's any meaningful reform to
| be had with liability for misuse. Demonstrating misuse is a
| substantial legal hurdle that no one is going to litigate in
| court. Even with severe and proactive enforcement, it'll just
| incentivize shell companies to act as liability shields.
| tossandthrow wrote:
| Which is normal in a lot of European countries
| tabular wrote:
| Could you name 3?
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Europe has perhaps stricter rules on ads, but they're
| absolutely not banned, at most they're restricted but that just
| means you'll see different ads, rather than no ads
| eobanb wrote:
| You're referring to outdoor advertising; the article is talking
| about something much more fundamental. But of course you would
| know that if you had read it
| darthwalsh wrote:
| Growing up around Seattle, I had never seen any billboard ads
| on the freeway. I had no idea it was heavily regulated in
| Washington State! I wish other states would ban them.
| hinkley wrote:
| Don't need to make it illegal just make it not deductible.
| remram wrote:
| It's deductible?
| hinkley wrote:
| In the US advertising is considered a business expense. So we
| equate it with investing in infrastructure or research, both
| of which reasonably would be subtracted from your revenue to
| determine your tax burden.
|
| It's very dumb.
| muddi900 wrote:
| So businesses would pay taxes on money they have spent?
| hinkley wrote:
| I think maybe you one don't understand how payroll works
| and two need to put more effort into participating. Or
| less.
| lacerrr wrote:
| Do you pay taxes on money you spend?
| daedrdev wrote:
| This seems to focus on online advertising. The question is how
| would you pay for many things on the internet?
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Sign me up for a monthly internet pass. Shit, bake it into my
| monthly internet access fee and make it so the service
| providers then pay back into internet infrastructure. Just like
| we do for radio and TV.
|
| I'd love to see the internet become relatively non profit,
| instead of the current for-profit, for absolutely shit model we
| are living in.
| thfuran wrote:
| >I'd love to see the internet become relatively non profit
|
| The stocks haven't gone down enough for your liking?
| SecretDreams wrote:
| They've gone down mostly for terrible reasons. I could at
| least accept lower stock prices for a better internet for
| me and my kids. Much like housing prices, haha.
| cpinto wrote:
| How many things on the internet do you really need and that are
| paid for via advertising?
| wood_spirit wrote:
| I remember fondly the early internet which was full of hobby
| sites and forums and niche link rings. This was an innocent
| better time where the internet was full of small scale
| creativity and sharing and mostly kindness.
| sejje wrote:
| The early internet, which I was a part of, and think of
| fondly, didn't have anywhere near the utility of the modern
| internet. It was fun to explore, but you couldn't DO much.
|
| I hosted my own site, in my bedroom. I hosted a counter-
| strike server, too. Comcast hadn't shut hosting down yet.
|
| Anyway, that has nothing to do with online banking, services,
| security, apps, media. Let's just use youtube--one of the
| greatest sites of all time, hands down. Huge utility, huge
| entertainment. Free, via advertising. Would have never
| happened without it.
|
| There's so, so much trash, webspam, etc on the modern web. I
| hate it, too. I don't even have warm feelings about youtube
| anymore. But advertising opened a lot of doors.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > Comcast hadn't shut hosting down yet.
|
| They still haven't. I host a site from my Comcast
| connection just fine.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Ha ha, so your answer is, everything that advertising pays
| for, which is like 99% of the internet usage today, would go
| away.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| There must be a reason someone hasn't invented a browser plugin
| for microtransactions on the internet?
|
| I'll gladly pay 25 cents to read an article from a news
| website, but I won't subscribe for a whole year for $25+,
| especially when there's dozens/hundreds of sites.
|
| Obviously credit card transaction fees would be a problem, but
| that could be mitigated by depositing say $15 at a time and
| deducting from the balance each time.
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is something I explain too. I'd gladly pay maybe 10
| cents for IntelliJ but it's the Pirate Bay otherwise. Just
| set the pricing appropriately. It costs $0 to make a copy so
| it's an infinite margin. Same with most SaaS. About 20 cents
| per month should be the maximum. Any more than that is
| gouging.
|
| Hiring engineers is even worse. I think about $20/hr should
| suffice but there's this big fuss kicked up about "they're
| not willing to pay enough".
| SteveNuts wrote:
| I mean the alternative is they get nothing from me at all
| once I hit their paywall..
|
| And I don't think ad revenue is paying the bills so I'm not
| sure what other options there are. I just went to a few
| major news sites:
|
| Wapo: $120/yr Reuters: $45/yr WSJ: $349/yr NYT: $195/yr
| Bloomberg: $299/yr
|
| That's just a few. Is it better if I just choose one and
| only get my news from a single site? Or should it really
| cost thousands of dollars per year to be informed?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I mean, it's either 10 cents or 0
| cents, so they should just charge everyone 10 cents to
| capture the marginal value from me.
| lukev wrote:
| This is the great white whale of the internet. A platform for
| this would clearly be a thing of value, but extremely
| difficult to do because you need to booststrap a two-sided
| market in an environment where all the existing established
| players are incentivized NOT to participate.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Blendle did exactly this, actually. With similar pricing.
| For many years. It generates very little money but maybe
| that's because German/Dutch news isn't valuable.
| adiabatichottub wrote:
| At first I scoffed at this idea, but then I had a tangential
| thought: what keeps me shopping at Amazon or ebay all the
| time instead of smaller retailers? It's not product quality
| or selection, that's for sure. It's mostly the friction of
| signing up for another site, entering my payment and shipping
| information, adjusting my mail filters, etc. What would
| really help would be complete automation of this process,
| where I click "Checkout", my browser goes through its
| workflow of asking me once if I approve, and a day or two
| later I get my product. So I guess if you had payment
| processing built into the user agent then you can have all
| the micro transactions you want.
|
| So what's keeping this from being a reality?
| SteveNuts wrote:
| No idea but I'd use it over maintaining 15 subscriptions
| arccy wrote:
| There are integrations like checkout with Amazon, Shop,
| Google Pay, etc that do this.
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| The problem with microtransactions is, who defines the
| minimum unit? Instead of just publishing a $0.25 article, a
| site could publish a $1.25 five-part series, each part duly
| ending in its own cliffhanger. And they'll do it as long as
| enough readers still keep reading it. (It doesn't matter how
| you'd prefer to read it, it only matters what they can get
| away with before profits start to decline. And it wouldn't
| have to be as drastic as this example, it would be a more
| subtle trend of less information expressed in more words over
| time.)
|
| Also, with 10x or more value on each reader's copy of the
| article, say hello to more stringent copyright enforcement
| (either legally or socially: how dare you replicate the work
| of this beloved blogger and deprive them of income!). And the
| complete death of independent search engines.
|
| I just don't see ubiquitous microtransactions leading to
| anywhere good on a social level. And of course, without a ban
| on advertising (however that's supposed to work), you'd just
| end up with sites full of ads on top of microtransactions.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| > Obviously credit card transaction fees would be a problem,
|
| Card transaction fees here in Norway can be extremely low if
| the merchant uses BankAxept, much lower than Visa,
| Mastercard, etc. And it even works if the network is down.
|
| https://bankaxept.no/en/services/backup-solution
| graemep wrote:
| I am pretty sure that if people had to find away to make things
| profitable they would.
|
| There are plenty of payment mechanisms already used online.
|
| IMO it would be well worth paying for things so I am the
| customer instead of the product.
|
| Many things could be replaced. My use of FB could be replaced
| by forums, for example. I would quite happily pay the bills for
| old style forums that replace the FB groups I admin (although
| not the costs imposed by the Online Safety Act, but that is a
| UK only problem).
| thrance wrote:
| We can rely on donations, look at Wikipedia or personal blogs.
| The best parts of the internet are free and non-profit.
| toomim wrote:
| This begs the question: how could you reliably distinguish
| advertising from other forms of free speech?
|
| The courts already distinguish "commercial speech" as a class of
| speech. Would we prevent all forms of commercial speech? What
| about a waiter asking you "would you like to try a rose with that
| dish? It pairs very well together." Is that "advertising" that
| would need to be outlawed?
|
| What about giving out free samples? Is that advertising, and thus
| should be illegal?
|
| What about putting a sign up on your business that says the
| business name? Is that advertising?
|
| I hate advertising and propaganda. But the hard part IMO is
| drawing the line. Where's the line?
| graemep wrote:
| I think it is a good question, but there are some answers. For
| one thing, it is paid for, though a system set up for the
| purpose of putting commercial speech on someone else's profit
| making media.
|
| Many laws do draw lines in areas that are equally difficult.
| Its a problem, but far from a fatal one.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well, the thought piece had one simple answer: Were you paid to
| say it, with the intent of motivating said person, to buy a
| product?
|
| Though, this piece made me groan with the buzzwords "a micro-
| awakening of the self." Great way to make me cringe if I send
| it to someone.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > Were you paid to say it, with the intent of motivating said
| person, to buy a product?
|
| For the waiter, this is probably true.
| goatlover wrote:
| So we exempt waiters. No one seriously thinks waiters are
| what the article is about.
| hfgjbcgjbvg wrote:
| Then illegal. Simple. And I like it tbh
| logicchains wrote:
| Think for a moment about what kind of horrible
| totalitarian system you'd need to be living in for it to
| be able to jail a waiter just for making a product
| recommendation. Given the current US administration, how
| could anyone in their right mind think it's a good idea
| to give the government that kind of power?
| jason_oster wrote:
| Who said the punishment would be imprisonment? Fine the
| waiter $5 for every violation. Such a small fine will be
| orders of magnitude higher than what advertisers pay.
| logicchains wrote:
| What happens if he doesn't pay the fine? He goes to jail.
| All laws are enforced with the threat of jail, otherwise
| nobody would follow them. So not only do you need an all-
| pervasive surveillance system to identify when a waiter
| tries to market something, but also a justice system with
| the power to jail him for doing so.
| yunohn wrote:
| You're right! Luckily everyone on HN works in the IT
| basement, so they can stay blissfully ignorant about how
| their company ever makes any money from the exquisite
| code they're writing...
| readams wrote:
| Presumably they can't have a menu either? The menu might
| induce you to buy something.
| saulpw wrote:
| You can always opt-in. Advertising is specifically
| information that is not requested.
| yunohn wrote:
| You are implicitly requesting it in exchange for free
| content, is that not obvious?
| saulpw wrote:
| On a billboard while driving to work?
| hfgjbcgjbvg wrote:
| If I don't ask for a menu don't give me a menu.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Many lines are hard to draw but we benefit from trying to draw
| them. Worrying too much would be bikeshedding
|
| The biggest example that comes to mind is gambling. Japan says
| it's not gambling if the pachinko place gives you balls and
| then you have to walk next door to a "different" company to
| cash out the balls. I say it sounds like their laws are
| captured by the pachinko industry.
|
| Video game loot boxes are technically legal but most of us
| don't want children gambling. Even if the game company doesn't
| pay you for weapon skins, there's such a big secondary market
| that it constitutes gambling anyway. Just like the pachinko
| machines.
| uniq7 wrote:
| Any laws with blurred lines will be used by the people in
| power against their political adversaries to keep them in
| power.
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| I agree with this. Any law that's not universally enforced:
| speeding, jaywalking, tax audit, etc is a tool for
| political persecution.
| IshKebab wrote:
| _All_ laws have blurred lines. I guess you could say some
| are a lot more blurred than others.
| autoexec wrote:
| > I say it sounds like their laws are captured by the
| pachinko industry.
|
| It wasn't just the pachinko industry that tied the hands of
| Japanese government. It was the people too. It's a lot harder
| to ban something and keep it banned when everybody wants it.
| Thankfully, not many people want ads, but pachinko was
| popular enough that it makes sense to continue to let people
| do it. You're right about still getting a benefit. Even after
| carving out exceptions, banning gambling broadly otherwise is
| effective enough to solve a lot of the problems that
| unregulated gambling can cause.
|
| I do think video game loot boxes are something that needs
| regulation. Not just because it is gambling, but because the
| games can be unfair and even adversarial. Casinos exploit and
| encourage adult gambling addicts but at least those games are
| required to be "fair" (no outright cheating) and they have to
| be honest about how unfair the odds against you are. A
| supposedly impartial third party goes around making sure
| casinos are following the rules. Video games don't have any
| of that and they're targeting children on top of it.
| thfuran wrote:
| >not many people want ads
|
| A whole lot of money wants ads though.
| what wrote:
| >video game loot boxes
|
| Is buying packages of random baseball/pokemon/etc cards
| gambling then?
| binarymax wrote:
| Hard rules are fallible, but we can lean on precedent in the
| supreme court for an adjacent topic (obscenity):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
| Apreche wrote:
| The answer is the same way we banned cigarette ads.
| oblanvil wrote:
| Yep, such an obvious & simple answer.
|
| I'm always amazed by how much ink gets poured before somebody
| mentions the obvious: this question has already been answered
| in a different context.
| kiicia wrote:
| There are two ways of trying to achieving goal. One is to start
| from big picture, think if we even want to do something, then
| plan how to go there. Second is to start from technicalities
| and probably immediately go nowhere.
|
| You are starting from technicalities before you even took the
| moment to actually think of goal is worth it.
|
| If it is worth it and we would indeed be better off - plan how
| to go there, it may not be easy, but it will be possible this
| way or another. If it is not worth it after all - just say it,
| no technicalities needed, redirect time and effort elsewhere.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It's not speech that needs to be regulated, it's broadcast
| (which should not have 1A protections at nearly the same
| level). Even if a waiter is giving recommendations, those are
| limited to the people at the table and there is clearly a
| mutual exchange of value. Broadcast (aka Industrial)
| advertising is something we accept, but not because it
| particularly benefits the viewer. It benefits the broadcaster
| and advertiser and makes the viewer into a product.
| ambicapter wrote:
| I think this is the best insight on this thread. Laws of this
| kind would be like banning billboards in cities, which has
| been done.
| throwanem wrote:
| And we already regulate actual broadcast on this basis.
|
| For example, it violates no rule to include valid Emergency
| Broadcast System/Emergency Alert System tones (the
| electronic, machine-interpretable "chirps") in a movie or
| TV show, or to publish that via streaming, DVD etc. But no
| one _does_ this, because broadcasting spurious tones (and
| triggering spurious automated broadcast interruptions)
| carries serious first-instance fines to which FCC licensees
| (ie distributors via broadcast) agree as a condition of
| licensure. They know they aren 't allowed to do this and,
| very occasional and expensive mishaps excepted, they won't
| take the risk. (1) So program material that wants to
| include those tones has to make sure they're excluded from
| the TV edit, or decide whether the verisimilitude is worth
| the limit on audience access.
|
| While the specifics of course vary among cases, the basic
| theory of broadcast (ie distribution) as distinct from and
| less protected than speech, with the consequential
| distinction drawn specifically along the scale at which
| speech is distributed, seems clear.
|
| (1) Some may note instances such as one of the Purge films
| (iirc) that seem to contradict this claim. Compare the
| tones in those examples with the ones in test samples or
| generated by a compliant encoder [1] for the "Specific Area
| Message Encoding" protocol. Even without a decoder, the FSK
| frequencies and timings have to be resilient to low-
| bandwidth channels designed to carry human voice, so it's
| all well within audible ranges and you can _hear_ the
| difference between real tones and what a movie or show can
| safely use. Typically either the pitch is dropped below
| compliant ranges, or the encoding is intentionally
| corrupted, or both. But almost always, the problem is just
| sidestepped entirely, since it 's the attention tone that
| everyone really notices anyway.
|
| [1] https://cryptodude3.github.io/same/ is no more
| certified than mine but has, unlike my own implementation,
| been tested against a real EAS ENDEC. At some point I want
| to test mine against that one and find out how badly I
| screwed up reading the spec ten years ago...
| ambicapter wrote:
| > For example, it violates no rule to include valid
| Emergency Broadcast System/Emergency Alert System tones
| (the electronic, machine-interpretable "chirps") in a
| movie or TV show, or to publish that via streaming, DVD
| etc. But no one does this, because broadcasting spurious
| tones (and triggering spurious automated broadcast
| interruptions) carries serious first-instance fines to
| which FCC licensees (ie distributors via broadcast) agree
| as a condition of licensure.
|
| Uh, what? You say there's no rule and then in the next
| sentence you talk about a rule.
| throwanem wrote:
| I said that it violates no rule to include in program
| material valid tones that will spuriously trigger an
| ENDEC which receives them, and that it _does_ violate a
| rule (specifically, a subsection of 47 CFR part 11 that I
| can 't be bothered hunting down just now) to _broadcast_
| program material including such tones.
|
| The example I like to refer to is my phone's PagerDuty
| ringtone, which includes a set of SAME headers
| (syntactically valid but encoding no meaningful alert,
| not that it matters) followed by the attention tone.
|
| Nothing I personally do with that ringtone can reasonably
| qualify as a violation of 47 CFR 11, because I don't have
| a broadcast license and thus am not bound by the
| provisions of one, to include those related to EAS.
|
| It _would_ be a crime for me to broadcast that ringtone
| directly - not because of the nature of the transmission,
| but because operating an unlicensed transmitter in
| licensed bands is an offense. Depending on the specifics
| of my putative pirate-radio actions under this scenario,
| in theory a case might be made under 47 CFR 11.45.1 ( "No
| person may transmit or cause to transmit...") for a fine
| along with the prison sentence, but I doubt anyone would
| see much cause to bother.
|
| But, if I were to go to a radio station for a live
| interview in the course of which my PagerDuty ringtone
| went off and the edit delay failed, causing the ringtone
| to go out over the air - in that case the _radio station_
| would be considered to have violated the EAS rule.
|
| _edit:_ OK, I nerd-sniped myself and did look it up
| again; it 's 47 CFR 11.45
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-11.45 which
| has been amended since I last reviewed it during the
| Obama administration to forbid transmission of the
| Attention Signal (the equal-amplitude 853/960Hz mix that
| raises the hair on your neck) as well as the encoded
| headers that will trigger automated EAS equipment. It's
| not terribly well written in my view, and I'm much more
| familiar with the technical than the legal aspects, but
| there's no precedent at least of which I'm aware for
| anyone not actually an "EAS Participant" as defined in 47
| CFR 11.2 to see any kind of enforcement action over an
| EAS violation.
| JuettnerDistrib wrote:
| How would this work for a personal blog? Would I need to be
| careful not to endorse or even talk about companies and
| products? And if I didn't have to, wouldn't that open the
| door for advertising masquerading as news or opinion?
| Genuinely interested in this.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Were you paid to talk about the product? If not, then it's
| constitutionally protected speech. If there is any kind of
| payment, it's advertising. If it's advertising, follow the
| law.
| thayne wrote:
| What constitutes as payment?
|
| If a company sends you a free sample in exchange for
| writing a review, and you get to keep it regardless of
| your conclusion, is that a payment? If so, that shuts
| down a way for consumers to get reviews of products
| before purchasing, but if not, the company might find
| various non-payment ways to influence what the reviewer
| writes.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Yes, free schwag is a form of payment. I say no
| inducements, no discounting, fair market rules only.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Put this way I almost think we should ban anything that makes
| "people into the product"
| thayne wrote:
| Does a website count as broadcast, since anyone with an
| internet connection can access it (sans the Great Firewall
| and similar)?
| niemandhier wrote:
| Money. It's advertising if mony or anything equivalent flows in
| any form, even after the act.
|
| Many countries have laws against corruption that are structured
| like that.
| OJFord wrote:
| So if you accept GP's waiter's rose suggestion, it was
| advertising, and if you don't it was not?
|
| (Schrosedinger, if you will.)
| niemandhier wrote:
| No but your doctor would have to think twice about
| recommending this drug that he got to know about at the
| company sponsored golf trip.
| DeepSeaTortoise wrote:
| So if a restaurant rents a property to build a really nice
| looking outdoor dining area, do they have to surround it with
| walls so people arent convinced by it to dine there?
| thfuran wrote:
| No. Why would they?
| LtWorf wrote:
| You understand there's a difference between a photo of a
| restaurant and a restaurant itself?
| djoldman wrote:
| In the communications industry there are SOME fairly bright
| definitions:
|
| - Advertising and marketing are when an entity _pays_ some
| other entity to transmit content
|
| - Public relations is when an entity, _without paying_ , causes
| another entity to transmit content
|
| - Public affairs is when an entity causes a governmental entity
| to consume specific content at minimum, up to possibly
| influencing decisions. It should go without saying that this is
| _without paying_ as well, otherwise it 's corruption/bribery
| kodt wrote:
| >- Advertising and marketing are when an entity pays some
| other entity to transmit content
|
| So all usage of the internet would apply?
| djoldman wrote:
| I guess I could have been more specific.
|
| ...an entity A pays some other entity B to transmit some
| specific content to a third party to induce the third party
| to take action that benefits the paying entity A.
| mc32 wrote:
| If money exchanges hands. If you pay someone to distribute
| flyers, or you pay someone to run ads.
|
| If you expect a this for that that benefits the giver. Like say
| a pharma offering free airfare and lodging to a medical
| conference if you talk up their product to patients.
|
| There will be corner cases, obscure circumstances, unforeseen
| loopholes, etc., but this would be a good start.
| antasvara wrote:
| Worth questioning who that benefits the most. It definitely
| benefits consumers in the sense that they won't be bombarded
| by advertisements.
|
| But it also benefits large businesses that _already_ spent
| millions advertising and now have a much deeper moat.
|
| It kind of reminds me of college sports before NIL deals.
| Back then, you couldn't pay college recruits. You'd think
| this levels the playing field, right?
|
| In fact, we saw the opposite effect. You see schools spending
| millions to add waterslides to their locker rooms, or
| promising "exposure" that smaller schools can't offer. You
| essentially had to spend twice as much on stuff that
| indirectly benefited the players.
|
| I'd expect similar things to happen among businesses. Think
| "crazy stunt in Times Square so that an actual news site will
| write about it."
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather than a
| bug.
|
| Being unable to tell when something is "advertising" forces
| everyone to think twice before hawking their wares, which is
| exactly what we want if we intend to kill ads. The chilling
| effect is precisely the intention.
|
| It's the engineer's curse to believe that airtight laws are
| automatically better, or that justice springs from mechanistic
| certainty. The world is fundamentally messy, and the sooner we
| accept its arbitrariness, the sooner we can get to an
| advertising-free world.
| tener wrote:
| So we end up in a system in which those with money to
| litigate will do what they want? I'd rather have airtight
| laws instead.
| _def wrote:
| That's where we are right now. Airtight laws are impossible
| in complex systems.
| tener wrote:
| Sure, but I meant airtight as a point on a spectrum
| rather than absolute thing. Meaning: you should prefer
| laws which are both generic and unambiguous.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Can you point to an airtight law regarding speech that
| exists today - both as written and enforced? I can't.
|
| This is a worse is better[1] situation. Specifically, I'm
| arguing against the MIT approach to lawmaking.
|
| The MIT approach:
|
| > The design must be consistent. A design is allowed to be
| slightly less simple and less complete to avoid
| inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness.
|
| Thinking about laws like software terminates thought.
|
| 1. https://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| No. This is called selective enforcement and is the worst
| thing in the world. It gives the enforcers the option to pick
| on whoever they want and give a pass to whever they want, as
| if there were no law at all. There is effectively no law at
| all, because literally anyone doing anything can be called
| either guilty or innocent at the whim of the person doing the
| enforcing, or whoever controls them.
| TuringTest wrote:
| You've just described how laws actually work - but we have
| created modern judiciary system so that it will tend to
| produce outcomes considered fair by the majority.
| Algorithmic enforcement of justice without human
| deliberation of case-by-case specifics would be worse that
| the worst horror stories about soulless bureaucracies.
|
| That's why we have judges and lawyers, so that the outcome
| can be decided as a communal process instead of just one
| person deciding what is punishable - even if the person is
| the developer building the automated justice dispenser and
| they'll be not around when the decision is taken, it would
| still be made by the whims of a single enforcer.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| You've just observed the fact that even the least
| ambiguous and subjective language possible still requires
| interpretation, not that laws are meant to be ambiguous
| or subjective.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| No, what it does is require the courts to interpret the
| meaning of the word and create precedent. That's not the
| same as selective enforcement.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| They literally said that the ambiguity is good because it
| keeps everyone on their toes because no one knows if they
| are safe. That's their own words not my invented re-
| interpretation.
|
| "The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather
| than a bug. Being unable to tell when something is
| "advertising" forces everyone to think twice..."
|
| Courts performing the job of interpretation is indeed not
| the same as selective enforcement, but this comment
| expressly advocates for deliberate ambiguity. Not
| unavoidable ambiguity.
|
| They obviously did not know they are asking for selective
| enforcement by that name, or why that is a bad thing, a
| far worse thing than the advertizing or whatever other
| bad behavior they imagine "forces everyone to think
| twice" curtails, but that is what ambiguity in a law gets
| you.
|
| Let alone a whole other dimension to this, that it
| doesn't even curtail what they think.
|
| They think they are attacking advertizers, but
| advertizers are fine under selective enforcement. Really
| they are only attacking themselves and all other little
| guy individuals. Google and Amazon and all other
| advertizers have the money and the connections at city
| hall to get their own behavior selectively allowed. It's
| only you and me and themselves who will ever have to
| "think twice".
|
| And it goes on down from every slightly bigger fish vs
| every slightly smaller. The local used car dealer
| uglifying your neighborhood has more friends on the
| police force and at the mayors office than you do, so
| they get to do whatever, and you get to think twice.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| > They obviously did not know they are asking for
| selective enforcement.
|
| I knew. I said it anyway. I maintain that selective
| enforcement establishes a chilling effect.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The only chilling effect it has is "don't anger guy in
| charge", not "don't do bad thing".
|
| It is a "cure" that is both ineffective and worse than
| the disease.
|
| It's putting knives on the outside of cars to have a
| chilling effect on jaywalking.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I think it's one thing you think it's another. Why don't
| you get curious or steel man instead of prosecuting?
| econ40432 wrote:
| There would be a chilling effect on speech. People would be
| afraid to speak or be imprisoned for saying the wrong things.
| North Korea is the only country that bans advertising.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > North Korea is the only country that bans advertising.
|
| Outright banning, yes maybe. But many countries or local
| governments severely _regulate_ advertising in one form or
| another, and no one is crying foul either.
| econ40432 wrote:
| These countries typically ban alcohol, gambling, children
| and pharma ads. They still let a large number of ads
| through.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Well those sound like a great place to start.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Some of us actually go as far as ban billboards,
| electronic billboards, or even during elections - some
| counties in Germany limit all kinds of election related
| propaganda to a few large billboards at the entrance
| roads, and the rest is kept clean from the bullshit.
| autoexec wrote:
| They didn't start out banning those ads. Those ads were
| banned because they were found to be more harmful than
| they are worth. We've come to realize that much of the
| ads we're subjected to these days are also harmful, so
| it's natural for us to want them banned as well.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| The free samples are interesting. No one got mad because people
| offered cheese samples at the grocery store, because they're
| not forced to eat them. I dread passing by the perfume island
| when I go shopping because the vendors can be persistent, but
| IMO that is also not blatant advertising. Offering free samples
| of perfumes inside magazines also doesn't offend anyone, but
| that's clearly paid advertising and would be illegal.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| In addition to sibling commenters mentioning incentive-side
| (eg. paid to promote) considerations, I also propose both an
| "immersion" and/or "consent" component.
|
| When you are dining, and are suggested food pairings -- I'm
| there to eat, so suggesting something food related from the
| same establishment, that may enhance my meal experience, makes
| sense and generally does not feel unduly interruptive. In a
| way, I consent to being offered additional interesting and
| available food items at that time and place. I would not find
| it acceptable if the waiter brought out a catalog and tried to
| sell me shoes or insurance.
|
| In a similar way, I don't mind (and often even enjoy or
| appreciate) movie trailers at the beginning of movies. I'm
| there to watch a movie, and in a fairly non-interruptive way
| (before the start of the movie) I am presented with some other
| movies coming out soon. Nice. I consent to seeing them at the
| start of a movie, and they are relevant to the subject matter.
| I would certainly be irritated if they were hoisted upon me in
| the middle of the movie, or if they were about new cars coming
| out soon.
|
| I have also at times been actively searching for something I
| need or want to purchase, but am unsure what exactly I am
| looking for or what are the best options. At that time I would
| certainly be more open and interested in seeing advertisements
| regarding the types of items I am interested in. I would
| "consent" to seeing interest based advertisements.
|
| Summary: I do not enjoy being interrupted with advertisements
| completely unrelated to whatever activity I am taking part in.
| I only want to see them when it is related to what I am doing,
| AND when I consent to seeing them.
| lostdog wrote:
| Airline credit card announcements on flights is a perfect
| example of what should be banned, but getting the law right
| is tricky.
|
| IMO it should be illegal due to using a system for safety
| announcements for non-safety profit related reasons.
| lukan wrote:
| I would start with obvious things, like banning distracting
| blinking advertisement next to roads and go further from there.
|
| Rule of thumb, all aggressive unwanted information.
|
| Clear? For sure not, like you said. But I am considering
| (rather dreaming) moving to La Palma, a vulcano island that
| banned all light advertisement (they did so, because of the
| observatories on top, but they are cool).
|
| Still, a city without aggressive lights would be nice. Some
| lights are probably unavaidable in big cities, but light that
| is purposeful distracting, should be just banned.
|
| And online is kind of a different beast, as we voluntarily go
| to the sites offering us information (but thank god and gorhill
| for adblockers)
| fragmede wrote:
| That's why it's such a stupid idea. People who want a world
| without advertising should create a product that will genuinely
| improve people's lives and be forced to work as a salesman
| selling that product and experience the practicalities of doing
| so before drawing lines. I'm not for unsolicited phone calls
| about my car's warranty during dinner, but advertising is not
| this universal evil that some make it out to be.
| imiric wrote:
| There's a world of difference between announcing the
| existence of a product to potentially interested
| demographics, and abusing people's privacy by collecting
| their personal data in order to build a profile of them so
| they can be micro-targeted by psychologically manipulative
| content that is misleading or downright false--oh, and their
| profile is now in perpetuity exchanged in dark markets, and
| is also used by private and government agencies for spreading
| political propaganda, and for feeding them algorithmic
| content designed to keep them glued to their screens so that
| they can consume more ads that they have no interest in
| seeing... And so on, and so forth.
|
| Whatever happened to product catalogs? Remember those? I'm
| interested in purchasing a new computer, so I buy the latest
| edition of Computer Shoppers Monthly. Companies buy ad space
| there, and I read them when I'm interested. The entire
| ecommerce industry could work like that. I go on Amazon, and
| I search for what I want to buy. I don't need algorithms to
| show me what I might like the most. Just allow me to search
| by product type, brand, and specifications, and I'm capable
| of making a decision. It would really help me if paid and
| promoted reviews weren't a thing, and I could only see honest
| reviews by people who actually purchased the product. This is
| a feature that ecommerce sites can offer, but have no
| incentive to.
| imiric wrote:
| We don't need to go into absurd discussions in order to prevent
| 99% of the harm that comes from modern advertising.
|
| The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to promote
| a product? That's advertising.
|
| Someone I know mentioning a product because they want to
| recommend it to me? Not advertising.
|
| Giving out "free" samples? Presumably someone is being paid to
| do that, so advertising.
|
| We can later quibble about edge cases and how to handle someone
| putting up a sign for their business. Many countries have
| regulations about visual noise, so that should be considered as
| well.
|
| But it's pretty easy to distinguish advertising that seeks to
| manipulate, and putting a stop to that. Hell, we could start by
| surfacing the dark data broker market and banning it
| altogether. That alone should remove the most egregious cases
| of privacy abuse.
| OmarShehata wrote:
| > The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to
| promote a product? That's advertising.
|
| this is _obviously_ not a clear line. No money is exchanged
| when I promote my own product through my own channels, nor
| when I promote my friends products, whether I disclose it as
| promotion, or disguise it as my genuine unaffiliated opinion.
| Sometimes it really _is_ a genuine opinion! Even worse:
| sometimes a genuine opinion _becomes_ an incentivized one
| later on as someone 's audience grows
|
| the good news is there is a solution that doesn't require
| playing these cat & mouse games and top down authority
| deciding what is allowed speech: you want better ways to
| reach the people who want your product.
|
| Ads are a bad solution to a genuine problem in society. They
| will persist as long as the problem exists. People who sell
| things need ways to find buyers. Solve the root problem of
| discernment rather than punishing everyone indiscriminately
| pishpash wrote:
| Yellow books used to do that. Because you're right it's a
| matchmatching problem.
| imiric wrote:
| > People who sell things need ways to find buyers.
|
| No, you've got that backwards. People who sell things
| should have a way of announcing their product to the world.
| Buyers who are interested in that type of product should be
| the ones seeking out the companies, not the other way
| around.
|
| The current approach of companies pushing their products to
| everyone is how we got to the mess we are in today.
| Companies will cheat, lie, and break every law in existence
| in order to make more money. Laws need to be made in order
| for companies to stop abusing people.
|
| You know what worked well? Product catalogs. Companies buy
| ad space in specific print or digital media. Consumers can
| consult that media whenever they want to purchase a
| specific product. This is what ecommerce sites should be.
| Give the consumer the tools to search for specific product
| types, brands, specifications, etc.; get rid of fake
| reviews and only show honest reviews from verified
| purchases and vetted reviewers, and there you go. Consumers
| can discover products, and companies can advertise.
|
| This, of course, is only wishful thinking, since companies
| would rather continue to lie, cheat, and steal, as that's
| how the big bucks are made.
|
| I honestly find it disturbing that with all of humanity's
| progress and all the brilliant technology we've invented,
| all of our communication channels are corrupted by
| companies who want to make us buy stuff, and by propaganda
| from agencies that want to make us think or act a certain
| way. Like holy shit, people, is this really the best we can
| do? It's exhausting having to constantly fight against
| being manipulated or exploited.
| beambot wrote:
| Product catalogs are advertising... The Sears catalog was
| full of products made by other companies, and Sears paid
| a ton of money to get those catalogs to as many people as
| possible
| PebblesRox wrote:
| I think the point is that they're opt-in advertising. You
| didn't pick up a book and find pages from the Sears
| catalog interspersed with the pages you were trying to
| read. You picked up the Sears catalog when you were
| considering a purchase and wanted to see what was
| available.
| beambot wrote:
| When you visit a ad-supported news website, you're opting
| in too... No one is forcing you to use that website
| versus it's ad-free subscription alternatives, it's just
| that most people have decided they'd prefer the former
| wat10000 wrote:
| The difference is that a catalog is advertising that the
| viewer actually wants to see. Ads on a news site are ads
| that the viewer merely tolerates because they go with the
| thing they want to see.
| what wrote:
| I get various catalogs/flyers/etc interspersed with my
| physical mail. They just send it to me, I never opted in.
| aezart wrote:
| Bulk mail should be banned, yeah.
| exac wrote:
| I think everyone knows that, but the distinction is that
| the catalog is "pull" in the sense that if you decide to
| keep your catalog, the advertising is inside the catalog,
| and you have to physically retrieve your catalog and open
| it to find what you're looking for (when you're looking
| for it), instead of the "push" method of running
| advertisements in every news article and on every bus.
| jasode wrote:
| _> I think everyone knows that, but the distinction is
| [...]_
|
| The discussion got muddied because in this subthread, it
| morphed from _" What if we made _all_ advertising
| illegal?"_ (original article's exact words) ... to gp's
| (imiric) less restrictive example of "acceptable"
| advertising such as _" product catalogs"_.
|
| So when the person crafting a reply is using the article
| author's absolutist position of no ads, the distinction
| doesn't matter.
| bawolff wrote:
| This metaphor seems a little tortured to me.
|
| If print media delivered to your door is considered
| "pull" because you have to open it, then i think so is
| instagram because you have to open the app.
| quacker wrote:
| But when I go to Instagram, I go to look at my friends
| posts, or at whoever I follow. I don't go to look at
| products/ads.
|
| If I open a product catalog, I do that to purposefully
| look at products.
| kodt wrote:
| You forget that people used to get spammed with catalogs,
| and you could opt-out of them with the postal service
| because it was such a problem. Receiving too many
| catalogs or magazines is absolutely a negative form of
| advertising, even though it is less of an issue today.
| refurb wrote:
| When Sears delivered the brand new Sear catelog to my
| door every year, all nicely wrapped in plastic with shiny
| images of brand new products, that sure as hell wasn't
| "pull".
| eduction wrote:
| > The current approach of companies pushing their
| products to everyone is how we got to the mess we are in
| today.
|
| The most prosperous society ever known to man, a
| veritable wonderland of consumer choice and
| entrepreneurial opportunity that draws people from all
| over the world to study visit and move here. What a mess.
|
| So we have some annoying advertising. Small price.
| imiric wrote:
| > So we have some annoying advertising. Small price.
|
| Ha. Tell that to the millions of victims from false
| advertising of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma.
|
| That prosperous society and veritable wonderland is not
| looking so great these days. Perhaps the fact that the
| tools built for psychologically manipulating people into
| buying things can also be used to manipulate people into
| thinking and acting a certain way could be related to
| your current situation? Maybe those tools shouldn't have
| been available to everyone, including your political
| adversaries?
|
| But hey, glad you're enjoying it over there.
| bluebarbet wrote:
| The snark padding is a waste of screen pixels and
| undermines your point.
| vogelke wrote:
| > millions of victims from false advertising of Big
| Tobacco
|
| People have known that smoking is bad for your health for
| around 400 years. You can't fix stupid, not even by
| making advertising illegal.
| ansmithz42 wrote:
| Having lived overseas, the US isn't a "veritable
| wonderland of consumer choice". There are 5 grocery store
| chains, for the great majority of the country there is
| one way to travel: car. At the store (Kroger), I can buy
| 2 kinds of salt on the shelves. Where is the "veritable
| choice"? It has been told in the advertising but the
| reality is very limited.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| There are scores of grocery chains in the US, not 5.
| There are thousands of independent grocery stores. And
| literally hundreds of salt options, even at Kroger.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supermarket_chains_
| in_...
|
| https://www.kroger.com/search?query=salt&searchType=defau
| lt_...
| ojbyrne wrote:
| The salt options must be customized regionally, because I
| only get 3 choices.
| relaxing wrote:
| Found the guy that doesn't actually shop at the grocery
| store.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Seriously. Even the most basic supermarkets stock like at
| least 10 different kinds of salt. Iodized, non, kosher,
| sea, for grinding, packets, in disposable shakers, etc.,
| and often a couple brands, e.g. Morton and Diamond. And a
| larger supermarket will have pink salt (Himalayan),
| various fancy sea salts, fleur de sel, flavored salts...
| mindcrime wrote:
| Meh. This scenario does not seem broadly representative
| of the US to me. I mean, I don't live anywhere
| exceptional and near me alone there are Food Lion, Harris
| Teeter, Wegmans, Trader Joes, Aldi, and Whole Foods
| stores in addition to the grocery sections at Walmart and
| Target. And if one drives a little further, there are
| Publix, H-Mart, and several smaller local outfits -
| Compare, Li Ming's Global Mart, etc.
|
| And just Food Lion alone has probably half a dozen to a
| dozen different salt varieties on the spice aisle.
|
| I'm sure there are places in the US where choice _is_
| more limited, but that 's the thing about a country of
| the size of the United States... you can find all kind of
| scenarios in different regions.
| nine_k wrote:
| The "veritable wonderland" is big cities; come visit NYC
| or LA. Also affluent smaller cities. Elsewhere, it
| depends. You can reach parts of the consumption
| cornucopia by accessing sites like Amazon from basically
| anywhere in the US though.
| refurb wrote:
| I strongly disagree.
|
| I've lived in a few overseas countries and consumer
| choice is absolutely limited. As a result you see a lot
| of people trying to import things they want that they
| can't otherwise get in their country.
|
| If your hobby is cooking, good luck getting Arabic food
| ingredients in say Vietnam.
|
| But in the US? If your own city doesn't have a store that
| carries them, you could easily order them online for next
| day delivery.
| corny wrote:
| And we could make those catalogs more appealing to the
| general public by inserting a lot of exclusive content
| like news, essays, or short stories.
|
| I basically agree with the spirit of what you're saying
| but the line is not clear.
| tremon wrote:
| The appeal of a catalog is to interest a prospective
| _buyer_ , not the general public. Once you start
| targeting the general public, you run into the issues the
| GP has identified.
| liendolucas wrote:
| > I honestly find it disturbing that with all of
| humanity's progress and all the brilliant technology
| we've invented, all of our communication channels are
| corrupted by...
|
| Honestly, you couldn't have said that any better. I
| always think exactly about that. Where we are today, the
| technology that we have at our disposal, and yet this
| whole machinery working 24hs non-stop to put these
| consumption ideas on our heads, cheap propaganda and
| useless stuff to manipulate us like puppets. Really
| disgusting.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Buyers who are interested in that type of product
| should be the ones seeking out the companies, not the
| other way around.
|
| People are not born with a knowledge of all of the
| products on the market, and the current price ranges for
| them.
| nickburns wrote:
| And that's--a problem somehow shared by someone who
| doesn't want to be advertised to?
| SideQuark wrote:
| One person's desire for ignorance should not force that
| on everyone.
|
| Don't want an add supported service? Don't use it. Don't
| want ads on TV? Don't watch it. Don't want ads on others
| property? Let them control the look of your property.
|
| Lots of people like ads because it's how they discover
| movies, restaurants, better financial help, better
| doctors, new hobbies, and a world they'd not have found
| otherwise.
| nickburns wrote:
| One person's 'desire' for what now?
| amelius wrote:
| Bring back Yellow Pages.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > all of our communication channels are corrupted by
| companies who want to make us buy stuff
|
| This is simply not true. You can buy or rent a server
| right now, run any kind of communication software on it
| that you want, and use that to communicate with anyone
| anywhere in the world, 100% ad-free. There are even pre-
| existing software stacks, like Mastodon, that make
| setting this up trivial.
|
| I honestly find it disturbing that you don't appear to
| realise that you are asking for control over _someone
| else 's_ communication platform.
| refurb wrote:
| You keep referring to companies, but companies don't make
| decisions, people do.
|
| So your problem with advertising is really a problem with
| people, with human nature.
|
| The truth is that whatever system you impose (with force
| no doubt!) would be optimized by the humans who exist in
| it.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| So your one rule is "money shouldn't change hands" and
| your one solution is "product catalogs"???
| addicted wrote:
| > No money is exchanged when I promote my own product
| through my own channels
|
| This is not really advertising, but it's not really a
| problem either. People expect you to promote your own
| products and take it with the grain of salt they should.
| Besides, there are only so many channels you can possibly
| control.
|
| > nor when I promote my friends products, whether I
| disclose it as promotion, or disguise it as my genuine
| unaffiliated opinion. Sometimes it really is a genuine
| opinion!
|
| Sure. Maybe this is advertising that slips through. If all
| were down to is people advertising their friends's products
| for no money then we would have eliminated 99.99% of the
| problem.
|
| Further, if you have a highly influential channel, the cost
| of promoting a non genuine opinion about a friend's product
| would almost certainly hurt your reputation, providing a
| strong disincentive to do such a thing.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| > People expect you to promote your own products and take
| it with the grain of salt they should.
|
| Similar thing happened with Amazon recently. They copied
| bestsellers and promoted their own products in their
| store leading to death of other companies. Now you are
| just making this loop in steroids. All the small
| companies would be forced to be sold to companies with
| eyeballs like Meta and Google.
| irrational wrote:
| > No money is exchanged when I promote my own product
| through my own channels
|
| Isn't it? You receive money when people buy your product
| because of your advertising.
| programjames wrote:
| > No money is exchanged when I promote my own product
| through my own channels, nor when I promote my friends
| products, whether I disclose it as promotion, or disguise
| it as my genuine unaffiliated opinion.
|
| But this is not the vast majority of 'advertising' or where
| advertising causes so much harm. A single individual has
| much less power to manipulate a single other individual,
| let alone thousands of other individuals. It takes millions
| of dollars to hire people with specialized marketing skills
| to do that.
| pishpash wrote:
| Why not just eliminate the sale of personal data? That seems
| pretty cut and dry.
| Rygian wrote:
| That's only part of the problem.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| I feel like all the "targeted audience" stuff is used more
| to sell ad space and get its metrics rather than actually
| "targeting" ads.
| autoexec wrote:
| I'd happily support that but the harms of advertising go
| beyond the problems of surveillance capitalism so heavily
| restricting ads seems like a good idea on its own.
| ulrikrasmussen wrote:
| Simply make it illegal to base the choice of what ad to
| show on any data derived from the person accessing the
| content. The same content accessed by different people from
| different locations should have the same ad probability
| distribution. You can still do old-school targeting by
| associating static content with certain types of ad a
| priori, as long as the shown content is independent of the
| user and not generated from any user data.
| econ40432 wrote:
| Does CNN, Fox News, ABC, New York Times and CBS use money to
| endorse candidates on air? Is that advertising?
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Who would think it's not advertising?
| econ40432 wrote:
| So these news networks would be banned too?
| Ukv wrote:
| The networks themselves wouldn't be banned, but they
| wouldn't be permitted to endorse or give airtime to a
| candidate in exchange for money, I'd assume is the idea.
| econ40432 wrote:
| They're not endorsing candidates in exchange for money.
| They do use their money to run their networks, which they
| use to promote certain candidates and positions.
|
| Re: "The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order
| to promote a product? That's advertising."
| Henchman21 wrote:
| They're endorsing candidates to sell more newspapers or
| more airtime for advertisers. How is that not "in
| exchange for money"?
| theamk wrote:
| What if they are running the story on local ocean tides
| or soup kitchens? They are doing this to sell more
| newspapers or more airtime for advertisers.. does this
| mean there is an "exchange for money" under your rule?
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Well, I'd argue that all stories don't fulfill the same
| purpose, and that such a small story doesn't have enough
| importance to the broader public for there to be an
| "exchange for money" of the type I've described.
|
| But also, it seems pretty clear that _political stories
| specifically_ generate massive cash flow for media,
| through clicks and "online engagement", the spectacle of
| debates, video of gaffes, and so on. I'd assume that is
| why the political "season" lasts longer and longer? The
| politicians certainly take advantage of this and use it
| to their ends. The media seem not to care as long as they
| continue to get "paid", in their way, and have access.
|
| This is a disgusting arrangement, IMO.
| theamk wrote:
| It is not clear to me that in general, political stories
| generate more cash flow vs things like sports or
| celebrities.
|
| I am sure that's the case _today_ , with all the crazy
| politics going on, but if you ask me average over 2
| years? I am not sure at all.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| What if the candidates did it for free? Aren't they
| already, because the networks are platforming them?
| Wouldn't the mere fact of showing a candidate be an
| endorsement in itself?
| tptacek wrote:
| Candidate endorsements (and political advertising in
| general) are core political speech. You can't outlaw it in
| the US.
| esperent wrote:
| Are candidate endorsements by corporations (e.g CNN)
| allowed? That sounds like something that should be
| banned.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Of course they're "allowed". _Congress shall make no
| law..._
|
| The New York Times Company can say anything they want
| about anything, and especially political candidates.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Sure, corporations get free speech protections too.
| Journalists even moreso.
|
| And while I'm inclined to believe not everyone should
| have free speech, I'm also aware that denying it is
| authoritarian.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Most advertising is done via "influencers," now...
| tptacek wrote:
| Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment.
| sethammons wrote:
| Should it be?
| worik wrote:
| No.
|
| The purpose of "free speech" is to allow the spread of
| ideas.
|
| The purpose of advertising is to spread an idea.
|
| They are different things.
| tptacek wrote:
| I mean, if you're going to make up your own First
| Amendment jurisprudence. But it would be worth reading
| the line of cases from Schneider through Sorrell (there's
| a lot of them) to get the reasoning of several
| generations of jurists on why it's not this simple.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| What?
|
| Yes, the purpose of "free speech" is to allow the spread
| of ideas. The purpose of _any_ particular piece of speech
| (a book, a pamphlet, a poster, a sign, a rally, a
| concert, anything) is to spread an idea. The idea in that
| particular piece of speech.
|
| Do you want to preserve free speech but ban speech that
| tries to spread an idea? Your comment would be banned
| because you're trying to spread that idea.
|
| Commercial speech is a legal term for speech that
| promotes commerce [1].
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech
| dahart wrote:
| Commercial speech is also widely recognized to have lesser
| First Amendment protection than personal, political, or
| ideological speech, and there are cases of advertisers
| losing in court, c.f. Spann v J.C. Penney, as well as
| decisions that explicitly limit the First Amendment
| protections of commercial speech.
|
| Trying to ban all advertising of course wouldn't get
| anywhere (especially under the current SCOTUS), and the
| article's author clearly hasn't really thought through the
| implications. But there is a legal door that is ajar, in
| the Central Hudson test, and could potentially be widened
| by arguing that some classes of today's advertising are
| against the public interest; the First Amendment is already
| not blanket covering all commercial speech.
| tptacek wrote:
| There is no conceivable Supreme Court configuration that
| would uphold a ban on advertising.
|
| Meanwhile, even the original Central Hudson test --- if
| commercial speech concerns lawful activity and isn't
| misleading, the government (1) needs a substantial
| interest and (2) must narrowly tailor the restriction ---
| was inhospitable to the sentiment in this blog post. But
| Central Hudson has as I understand it gotten more
| restrictive, not less; for instance, Sorrell, which was a
| bipartisan decision, applies heightened scrutiny to
| regulations under Central Hudson.
|
| You can keep cigarette ads out of Highlights for Kids.
| But you're not going to be able to keep Nike from buying
| up ad inventory, and you'll certainly not be able to
| regulate political and cause advertising (and
| "propaganda").
| worik wrote:
| > The line is clear
|
| It is not. It never is. But that is not a big problem.
|
| Around the boundary cases there will be injustice and strife.
| But only around the boundary cases.
|
| We deal with this all the time in our societies. Some
| societies are better at it than others
|
| "The perfect is an enemy of the good"
| numpad0 wrote:
| I'm wondering if it's possible that the reality might be
| working the other way around than perceived. Could there be
| steaming can of worms that modern rampant commercial
| advertising is venting and holding down?
|
| Studio Ghibli made ~$220m on _Spirited Away_. What if they
| made $2.2T, is the quality going to go up, or down? And,
| would there be less ads, if no one made even $2.2 on them?
| card_zero wrote:
| You're presenting an idea here by means of a lot of
| implicit leaps, and I don't even know where I'm supposed to
| leap _to_ at each stage. It 's like a logic game that I'm
| failing at.
|
| What's the connection between adverts and the amount of
| money Ghibli made on their best-loved movie?
|
| Hmm, maybe none, maybe you're using Ghibli as a _metaphor_
| for products that make money through adverts. And maybe the
| implied answer to the next question is that their next
| movie, The Cat Returns, would have been higher quality if
| they had made even more money on Spirited Away. So what you
| could be saying is that crippling the ad industry would
| lead to lower quality products, without even much reducing
| the number of (less effective) adverts that get made.
|
| That's one way to read what you said, but I feel like I got
| it wrong.
| numpad0 wrote:
| No, I'm saying what I had said in the first paragraph of
| my comment. I'm saying, the reward might not be the fuel,
| but it could be fire retardant, and you might not want to
| cut it off.
|
| People getting paid to do things do worse than
| otherwise[1]. They do better when _not_ paid. The quality
| of work often gets worse when they get more. It 's well
| established. As counterintuitive as sometimes it seem to
| be.
|
| What I'm essentially saying is, if you think people are
| right now getting paid to do something bad to the
| society(e.g. ads), you might want to keep them hooked and
| tied to the money and not to something else, like
| advertising for its own sake.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect
| card_zero wrote:
| Oh! OK, so:
|
| _Fear the work of unpaid ad execs! They won 't stop
| making adverts, it's what they live for, money or no
| money! The adverts will continue to be made, but now they
| will be made for love, and they will be extremely high
| quality! And if you think ordinary adverts are bad, wait
| until you see what adverts are like when they come from
| the heart!_
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yeah, literally. It'll promote something much worse with
| more passion. You see where this is going?
| card_zero wrote:
| I wonder if I should point out that your link says that
| it's when people _stop_ being paid that quality declines.
| However, if "ads for ads' sake" became a thing, it would
| presumably look like propaganda, in support of whatever
| the advert-artist personally cares about.
| timewizard wrote:
| > The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to
| promote a product? That's advertising.
|
| Let's say I have a journal. It costs money to subscribe. It
| covers a topic that many college students also study.
|
| Can I give the school a free copy? Can I give the teachers
| one? Can I give the students one? Is this advertising? When
| does the amount of "value" become offensive?
|
| > surfacing the dark data broker market and banning it
| altogether.
|
| This is why this has become a modern problem. I can live with
| erring on the side of free speech when it comes to
| advertising, but there is no side to err on when it comes to
| analytics and targeting.
| tptacek wrote:
| The line doesn't matter, because advertising is protected
| by the First Amendment.
| Vilian wrote:
| It's not because USA constitution is bad that it can't be
| applied to any other country
| snackbroken wrote:
| So is fraud, libel, extortion, sexual harassment,
| impersonating a police officer, perjury, incitement,
| performing a stage play without a license from the
| writer, etc. but this hasn't stopped congress from
| passing laws to abridge the freedom of these particular
| kinds of speech. It's quite clear that the "freedom of
| speech" referenced in the 1st amendment pertains to
| expressing one's own sentiment, and that this is not the
| same as expressing something one is paid to express. The
| mental gymnastics necessary to convince oneself that
| spending money is protected speech are likewise
| ridiculous.
| tptacek wrote:
| Legislatures have tried to pass laws regulating
| commercial speech in various ways and the track record is
| generally that they get their asses handed to them by the
| court, because this is basically the most protected right
| in our system.
|
| It's fine if everyone here wants to fantasize about some
| alternative system, but "we make advertising illegal" is
| not something that can happen in our system of
| governance.
| snackbroken wrote:
| Courts consistently interpreting a law wrongly is cause
| for amending said law to clarify its intent. Amending the
| constitution is certainly something that can happen
| within the system of governance as evidenced by the fact
| that we are discussing an amendment to it. It's just a
| law, not a religious document. Granted, clarifying the
| 1st to read more like Madison's draft is unlikely to
| happen anytime soon for cultural reasons.
| tptacek wrote:
| When it's literally 100 years of consistent jurisprudence
| this kind of argument loses some of its teeth. Liberal
| courts, conservative courts, modern courts, old courts,
| they all seem to agree on this point.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Legislatures have tried to pass laws regulating
| commercial speech in various ways and the track record is
| generally that they get their asses handed to them by the
| court,
|
| I mean, no, legislatures (both Congress and the states)
| successfully limit commercial speech all the time, which
| is, for instance, why no one in Gen X has seen or heard a
| TV or radio ad for cigarettes in the US when they were
| old enough to purchase them.
|
| > but "we make advertising illegal" is not something that
| can happen in our system of governance.
|
| Broadly banning "advertising" (under almost any plausible
| definition that would be reasonably accord with common
| use) would probably fall afoul off the 1st Amendment as
| it is today, but our Constitutional system of government
| includes provision for changing any feature of the
| Constitution (nominally, _except_ the equal
| representation of states in the Senate, but that
| restriction neither protects _itself_ from being amended
| out, nor protects all the _functions_ of the Senate from
| being amended out and the equal representation being at
| zero seats per state, so it is more of a symbolical than
| substantive restriction.)
| makapuf wrote:
| The fact that the boundary can be a bit blurry does not
| prevent it to be useful. Yes there may be corner cases to
| thunk about ans that can vary, as with all laws. It's bot
| perfect but its better than current out of control
| situation.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to
| promote a product? That 's advertising._
|
| The line is absolutely _not_ clear.
|
| Is ABC allowed to run commercials for its own shows?
|
| ABC is owned by Disney. Is ABC allowed to run commercials for
| Disney shows? Is it allowed to run commericals for Disney
| toys?
|
| Can ABC run commercials for Bounty paper towels, in exchange
| for Bounty putting ads for ABC shows on its paper towel
| packaging?
|
| Literally _no_ money is being exchanged so far.
|
| I'm familiar with a lot of gray areas that courts regularly
| have to decide on. But trying to distinguish advertising from
| free speech sounds like the most difficult free speech
| question I've ever come across. People are allowed to express
| positive opinions about products, and even try to convince
| their friends, that's free speech. Trying to come up with a
| global definition of advertising that doesn't veer into
| censorship... I can't even imagine. Are you suddenly
| prevented from blogging about a water bottle you like,
| because you received a coupon for a future water bottle?
| Because if you use that coupon, it's effectively money
| exchanged. What if your blog says you wouldn't have bothered
| writing about the bottle, but you were so impressed with the
| coupon on top of everything else it got you to write?
|
| You can argue over any of these examples, but that's the
| point: you're arguing, because the line isn't clear.
| kragen wrote:
| > _Is ABC allowed to run commercials for its own shows?_
|
| Well, not if they pay employees to do it. Except that shows
| aren't products, they're services, so they'd be exempt from
| this proposal.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| > Except that shows aren't products, they're services, so
| they'd be exempt from this proposal.
|
| What does that mean? What's a service in this definition?
| Surely not in the normal definition of a "service", as in
| health care or tech? Like is a movie a service too?
|
| Or do you just mean something you get for free because
| it's a show on their own channel? What if you had to pay
| for shows ala carte?
| kragen wrote:
| I suggest reading
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics). Some
| authors use the term "product" in opposition to
| "service", while others consider services to be a type of
| product. Not being clear about that distinction is one of
| the fatal flaws in imiric's proposal.
|
| A show isn't made of matter. If you pay for it, you can't
| take possession of it or resell it later. If you, the
| buyer, aren't available at the time that it is provided,
| you get nothing of value out of the deal. These are
| attributes of services like surgery or internet
| connectivity, not products like antibiotics and
| computers. ("Health care" and "tech" are too vague to be
| useful.)
|
| Getting things for free is not, as you imply, a usual
| attribute of services.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| That makes even less sense than I thought. So things that
| "are not made out of matter" can be advertised. Like I
| can advertise YouTube, AWS, Netflix, pretty much 99% of
| online services, movies, a doctor practice as long as I
| just do diagnostics, landscaping as long as I just cut
| and clean. I just can't advertise anything where I'd hand
| you something "made out of matter". What kind of sense
| does that make?
| kragen wrote:
| It makes no sense at all, which was my point. I've
| criticized it at greater length in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43596993.
| dmoy wrote:
| I agree with the general thought - doing something like
| this would give giant mega corporations a huge leg up from
| verticals.
|
| > Can ABC run commercials for Bounty paper towels, in
| exchange for Bounty putting ads for ABC shows on its paper
| towel packaging?
|
| I was with you until this one
|
| Under both IRS and GAAP rules, that's equivalent to money
| changing hands. So in a hypothetical "no money for
| advertising" world, that would be over the line.
| theamk wrote:
| ok, what if ABC buys a 55% stake in Bounty and puts ads
| for them because they are the same owner now? What if
| it's 10% stake? Can they claim (truthfully) they want to
| increase the value of their stock?
| esperent wrote:
| You're trying to make this sound very complicated but
| it's not. In this world without paid advertising, ABC can
| advertise their own shows. They cannot advertise things
| for other companies, whether they own them or not.
|
| A network of TV stations could cross-promote across all
| stations. Yes, that would be unfair, but no more unfair
| than the current situation where whoever has more money
| can have their ads seen everywhere. Fairness between
| companies isn't the goal, it's less manipulation and
| noise for the rest of us.
|
| There's an example of a TV station that already has to
| follow these rules: the BBC.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _it 's less manipulation and noise for the rest of us._
|
| That's not what would happen.
|
| You'd just end up with diverse companies consolidating
| into single companies and advertising just as much as
| before, but for their own products in their own media
| properties.
|
| Coca-Cola will merge with a movie studio and a television
| network and a billboard company to put its product
| placement and ads everywhere in properties it just simply
| owns. Probably merging with Proctor-Gamble or Unilever
| while it's at it.
|
| BetterHelp will merge with a bunch of supplements
| companies and purchase a bunch of top podcast studios, so
| top podcasts will continue to advertise the same exact
| things as before.
|
| And so on.
|
| It's wishful thinking to suppose that companies wouldn't
| find ways around this. Advertising is that powerful and
| important that it'll be worth it to them.
| Gunax wrote:
| I think you articulated the vagueness very well.
|
| One other example I was thinking was product placement. Are
| these characters eating pizza? Or is it Pizza Hut(r)(tm)
| pizza?
| kragen wrote:
| Maybe you should post a proposal for a law that's a little
| more specific than "is money being exchanged in order to
| promote a product? That's advertising." Then we can see if it
| is in fact possible to prevent 99%, or for that matter 50%,
| of the harm that comes from modern advertising, without
| outlawing other things.
|
| Let's consider toomim's three examples: "would you like to
| try a rose with that dish? It pairs very well together,"
| giving out free samples, and putting a sign up on your
| business that says the business name.
|
| The first case seems like it would straightforwardly be
| illegal under your proposal if the waiter is an employee (or
| contractor) who gets paid by the restaurant, because the
| restaurant is exchanging money with the waiter in order to
| promote the rose, which is a product. It would only be legal
| if the waiter were an unpaid volunteer or owned the
| restaurant.
|
| The second case seems like it would straightforwardly be
| illegal under your proposal if the business had to buy the
| free samples from somewhere, knowing that it would give some
| of them out as free samples, because then it's exchanging
| money with its supplier in order to promote its products (in
| some cases the same product, but in other cases the bananas
| and soft drinks next to the cash registers, which people are
| likely to buy if you can get them into the store). Also, if
| one of the business's employees (or a contractor) gave out
| the free samples, that would be exchanging money with the
| employee to promote a product. You'd only be in the clear if
| you're a sole proprietor or partnership who bought the
| products without intending to give them away, changed your
| mind later, and then gave them away _yourself_ rather than
| paying an employee to do so.
|
| Putting up a sign on the business that says the business name
| is clearly promoting products, if the business sells
| products. Obviously the business can't pay a sign shop. If
| the business owner makes the sign herself, that might be
| legal, but not if she buys materials to make the sign from.
| She'd have to make the sign from materials unintentionally
| left over from legitimate non-advertising purchases, or which
| she obtained by non-purchase means, such as fishing them out
| of the garbage. However, she'd be in the clear if her
| business only sells services, not products.
|
| A large blanket loophole in the law as you proposed it is
| that it completely exempts barter. So you can still buy a
| promotional sign from the sign shop if you pay the sign shop
| with something other than money, such as microwave ovens. The
| sign shop can then freely sell the microwave ovens for money.
|
| In this form, it seems like your proposal would put at risk
| basically any purchase of goods by a product-selling
| business, except for barter, because there is a risk that
| those goods would be used for premeditated product promotion.
| Probably in practice businesses would keep using cash, which
| would give local authorities free rein to shut down any
| business they didn't like, while overlooking the criminal
| product-promotion conspiracies of their friends.
|
| So, do you want to propose some legal language that is
| somewhat more narrowly tailored? Because a discussion
| entirely based on "I know it when I see it" vibes is
| completely worthless; everyone's vibes are different.
| Const-me wrote:
| I think the language is OK, it's just that you are
| consistently ignoring "in order to promote a product"
| clause.
|
| The first case is legal because waiter gets paid by the
| restaurant to serve meals, not to promote the specific
| brand of rose wine. Only illegal if the waiter has another,
| secret contract with the wine manufacturer to "recommend"
| specific wine.
|
| The other two cases are legal because the money exchanged
| in order to receive goods. The fact the goods are then used
| to promote something is irrelevant.
| kragen wrote:
| I wasn't ignoring it; I specifically criticized it in
| detail. Your interpretation does not seem defensible or
| even coherent, but maybe you could propose less ambiguous
| language that clearly lays out the interpretation you
| have in mind. That way we can evaluate its tradeoffs.
| imiric wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, nor is it my job to come up with
| loophole-free regulation. People in those professions can
| think hard about this problem, and do a much better job
| than some layperson who thought about it for a few minutes
| on an internet forum. Even for them, though, coming up with
| laws without loopholes that are not too restrictive in
| legitimate situations is often impossible, so it's
| ridiculous that you would expect the same from me.
|
| That said, after thinking about it for a few more minutes,
| I can think of one simple addendum to my initial criteria.
| I wrote about it here[1], so I won't repeat myself.
|
| It's asinine that this discussion is taken to extreme ends.
| We don't need to ban all forms of advertising and get into
| endless discussions about semantics and free speech in
| order to stop the abuse of the current system. There is
| surely a middle ground that does it in a sensible way. The
| only reason we don't fix this is because the powers that be
| have no incentives to do so, and the general population is
| conditioned and literally brainwashed to not care about it.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43599948
| kragen wrote:
| Your addendum, "Only applies for companies, and only to
| those with more than $100,000 ARR," doesn't help at all;
| it still prohibits the three examples in most cases and
| still has the barter loophole.
|
| If you can't figure out how to express what you want in
| such a way that it doesn't immediately collapse upon the
| most casual attempt at critical thought, the problem
| probably isn't that the population is brainwashed. It's
| probably that what you want is to eat your cake and still
| have it, a logical contradiction that could never exist
| in any possible world.
|
| You seem to think that the law is something that can be
| delegated to the lawyers. But in fact the law balances
| conflicting interests. If you don't participate in
| defining it, your interests won't be taken into account.
| A law written by lawyers without outside input will only
| serve the lawyers' interests, not yours.
| imiric wrote:
| It's not the role of citizens to come up with regulation
| that protects them. It's not their role to protest or
| even acknowledge that they are being abused. It's the
| role of governments and law makers to ensure the safety
| of their citizens. This is literally what we elect and
| pay them to do.
|
| If you can't see how the current system is harming not
| just individuals, but the stability of governments and
| our democratic processes, and the role of the advertising
| industry in all of this, then nothing I nor anyone else
| says can convince you otherwise.
|
| You seem more interested in scrutinizing hastily put
| together arguments by laypeople on an internet forum,
| than acknowledging the issues put forth, and the fact
| that fixing this deeply rooted problem will require
| multi-faceted solutions over a very long period of time.
|
| And for that reason, I'm out.
| kragen wrote:
| I agree that the current system is harmful in exactly the
| ways you describe, but I don't see you contributing
| anything towards solving those problems or even
| understanding what a solution would consist of. Instead
| you are criticizing policymakers for failing to satisfy
| your preferences even though you can't articulate them
| coherently yourself.
|
| This:
|
| > _It 's not the role of citizens to come up with
| regulation that protects them. It's not their role to
| protest or even acknowledge that they are being abused.
| It's the role of governments and law makers to ensure the
| safety of their citizens._
|
| is not a description of the relationship between citizens
| and a democracy. It's a description of the relationship
| between subjects and a monarch or dictator--a
| relationship which invariably results in serious abuses
| of those subjects.
|
| If you don't have a coherent idea of what you want,
| nobody can give it to you.
| kodt wrote:
| Well money must be exchanged to put up a sign outside of your
| business. Therefore it would be illegal.
| theamk wrote:
| exchanged with whom? If it's a small business, it's likely
| the owner puts the sign out themselves.
|
| Or is it money exchange with sign manufacturer? In this
| case are outdoor signs OK if owner personally made them?
| thayne wrote:
| Most likely you paid someone to make the sign, and
| someone else to put it up. Even if you made and installed
| the sign yourself, you paid for the materials.
| theamk wrote:
| I am thinking outside blackboard ones, where owners write
| message in chalk [0] - they don't pay anyone to write the
| words, nor do they pay anyone to "install" it (= take it
| out).
|
| I suppose the sign itself must be paid for... but many
| eateries are using the same signs for menus, so if owner
| re-purposed one of the menu signs, is there money
| involved? Or does owner have to dig in garbage bins to
| find the blackboard for free? What about writing messages
| straight on the wall? What about printing signs on the
| printer your own and taping them to the wall?
|
| Now, don't get me wrong, I think it would be an overall
| improvement if those professionally-made outdoor signs
| get replaced by artisanal handwritten (or at least
| handmade) ones, but I don't think that this is what the
| original idea was about.
|
| [0] https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/text-
| written-on-cha...
| thayne wrote:
| Even for a blackboard, what if it is a paid employee that
| writes on it? Is it required for the owner to write it
| themselves?
|
| For that matter, would it be prohibited for employees to
| promote any product in any way?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The definition in the second sentence would ban sponsorship
| of public television, among other things. I don't think that
| plan nets out to a positive.
| thayne wrote:
| > The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to
| promote a product? That's advertising.
|
| So that would exclude:
|
| - listing your house, or car in the classifieds
|
| - buying a sign for your business (ad discussed in other
| posts)
|
| - buying a garage sale sign
|
| - buying a for sale sign, or flyers for your house for sale
|
| - paying a realtor to sell your house
|
| - paying a reporter or professional reviewer to write a
| review. Even if they are paid by a
| newspaper/magazine/consumer report site, money exchanged
| hands for something that promotes a product.
|
| - distributing a catalog
|
| - paying a cloud provider or VPS provider or website hosting
| service to host a website that promotes your product
|
| Also, what exactly constitutes a "product"? Does a service
| count? If not, that is a pretty big loophole. What about a
| job position? Or someone looking for employment?
|
| And finally, advertisement in some form is kind of important
| for making customers aware your product exists. Word of mouth
| isn't very effective if you don't have any customers to begin
| with. I would expect removing all advertising to have a
| chilling effect on innovation and new businesses.
|
| To be clear, I think the current advertising environment is
| terrible, and unhealthy, and needs to be fixed. But I think
| that removing all advertisement would have some negative
| ramifications, especially if the definition of an ad is too
| simplistic.
| barnabee wrote:
| Publishing factual information in a place people expect to
| find it is not advertising.
|
| Listing a house for sale on an agent's website: not
| advertising.
|
| Promoting that listing or the agent on the home page of a
| local news site: advertising
|
| etc...
|
| Some cases will be harder, all are decidable. We are
| talking about law not code, so there's no need for a
| perfect algorithm, the legal system is designed precisely
| to deal with these sorts of question.
| thayne wrote:
| > Publishing factual information in a place people expect
| to find it is not advertising.
|
| According to the definition given, if the intent is to
| "promote a product", and money changed hands it is.
|
| It also meets websters definition of advertising:
|
| > the action of calling something to the attention of the
| public especially by paid announcements
| crazygringo wrote:
| Exactly. You're paying a realtor to promote your house,
| including on their site, to sell it.
|
| _Zero_ difference from hiring a TV channel to promote
| your product, on their channel, to sell it.
|
| Which is why trying to define advertising in a way that
| bans it is not simple at all.
|
| GP says "Publishing factual information in a place people
| expect to find it is not advertising."
|
| OK. Now the realtor adds a blog. They start publishing
| news about the real estate business. With listings mixed
| in. Congrats, you've got a newspaper with ads for homes.
| Are you ready to say the realtor can't publish news?
| Isn't that censorship?
|
| Also, home listings aren't "factual". They're
| promotional. They focus on pros and omit cons. They have
| photos that hide the ugly parts. They're ads for homes,
| period.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Surely there is a difference between me (private person )
| selling my 1 car/house or company Y advertising their
| latest car model (they want to sell 1000ds).
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yes, there's a difference in the number of items you're
| selling.
|
| There isn't a difference in terms of the fact that it's
| advertising a sale. Nor is it relevant if you're doing so
| personally, as a sole proprietor, as a partnership, as an
| S corp or as a C corp. Advertising something for sale is
| advertising something for sale. Ads are ads.
|
| Also, on the realtor's site they're listing hundreds of
| homes. Not any different from your local car dealership
| advertising their hundreds of vehicles. They're both
| corporations listing ads.
|
| Advertising is advertising.
| thayne wrote:
| There is absolutely a difference. Multiple differences in
| fact. But the difference isn't "one is an ad, and the
| other isn't".
| imiric wrote:
| It's remarkable that you put all that thought into coming
| up with holes in my one-line argument, and no thought into
| steelmanning it.
|
| Since we're coming up with hypothetical laws and loopholes,
| here is a simple addendum to my original argument:
|
| - Only applies for companies, and only to those with more
| than $100,000 ARR.
|
| There. That avoids penalizing most of the personal
| advertising scenarios you mentioned. Since laws are never a
| couple of sentences long, I'm sure with more thought we'd
| be able to find a good balance that prevents abuse, but not
| legitimate use cases for informing people about a product
| or service.
|
| Again, the goal is not to get into philosophical
| discussions about what constitutes advertising, and banning
| commercial speech, or whatever constitutional right exists.
| The goal is to prevent companies from abusing people's
| personal data, profiling them, selling their profiles on
| dark markets, allowing mass psychological manipulation that
| is threating our democratic processes, and in general, from
| corrupting every communication channel in existence. Surely
| there are ways of accomplishing this without endless
| discussions about semantics and free speech.
|
| But, as I've said in other threads, this is all wishful
| thinking. There is zero chance that the people in power who
| achieved it by these means will suddenly decide to regulate
| themselves and kill their golden goose. Nothing short of an
| actual revolution will bring this system down.
|
| > And finally, advertisement in some form is kind of
| important for making customers aware your product exists.
|
| Agreed. In the olden days before digital ads, product
| catalogs worked well. Companies would buy ad space in
| specific print media, and consumers interested in buying a
| product would consult the catalog for the type of product
| they're looking for. Making ads pull rather than push
| solves this awareness problem proponents of advertising
| deem so important. The reason they prefer the push approach
| is because it's many times more profitable for all involved
| parties. The only victims in this system are the people
| outside of it. The current system is making a consumer of
| everyone every time they interact with any content, when
| the reality is that people are only consumers when they're
| actively looking to buy something. Most of the time we just
| want to consume the content we're interested in, without
| being sold anything. It's the wrong approach, with harmful
| results, and the only reason we stuck with it is because
| it's making someone else very rich. It's absolute insanity.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| What if I "win" a BMW and I can't stop talking about it on
| social media?
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > is money being exchanged in order to promote a product?
|
| So if I paint my store front's sign myself, I'm good, but if
| I pay a signwriter to paint it, it's illegal?
|
| I guess I better become "friends" with a signwriter, so that
| they don't mind making a sign or two for me "for free". And
| so that I don't mind giving them a widget or two from my
| store sometime in the future.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > Someone I know mentioning a product because they want to
| recommend it to me? Not advertising.
|
| Except that it is, and it's why social media is so important
| for marketeers; the best kind of advertising is word-to-
| mouth, so generating discourse about products is big
| business.
|
| Anyway, without strict legislation and tight controls on
| social media / chat / RL, how would you know whether they
| would be getting paid or not?
|
| It's a legal and / or philosophical conundrum, not to mention
| even more of a legal whack-a-mole than it already is.
| OJFord wrote:
| I would propose 'unsolicited salesmanship'.
|
| If I enter your restaurant, car dealership, etc. then you can
| pitch & try to up-sell your goods and services to me.
|
| If I drive down a motorway or use your website, third-parties
| can't advertise _their_ goods and services at me from spots you
| 've sold them. (But you can tell me it will be faster to exit
| onto your toll road or that I should buy or upgrade my
| membership plan on the site.)
| pishpash wrote:
| So no third-party advertising. But that would then create
| bundling schemes where the restaurant sells you a bundle of
| their goods and some third-party goods together, for a
| kickback on the backend, or they make referrals.
| OJFord wrote:
| No, that's why I said 'unsolicited' rather than 'third-
| party', so take the motorway billboard toll road example -
| if you also happen to own the car dealership or the webapp,
| you can't advertise _that_ , because that's not what I've
| come to your motorway for.
|
| And what's solicited or 'relevant' doesn't need to be
| rigidly defined in statutes (assuming common law) - the ASA
| or OfCom whoever it would be (UK examples) slaps fines on
| the rulebreakers and if they think they've interpreted the
| law correctly in good faith then it goes to court and we
| find out (and the growing body of case law helps future
| would-be-advertisers interpret it).
|
| The existing advertisement disclosure rules for social
| media for example don't allow the loophole you propose: a
| 'sponsored' segment shilling a product in a YouTube video
| isn't considered different from directly selling video time
| to the third-party in which to run their own ad reel.
| mulmen wrote:
| How do grocery stores work in this model?
| thfuran wrote:
| Same as they always have?
| josephpmay wrote:
| Most grocery stores charge brands for better shelf
| positions
| thfuran wrote:
| I see. Well, same as they always have from the consumer
| point of view, maybe with less extortion behind the
| curtain.
| mulmen wrote:
| How can you be so certain the consumer experience would
| remain the same when the marketing incentives change
| entirely? They're literally called super _markets_.
| kaibee wrote:
| I'd hope the consumer experience ends up improving.
| mulmen wrote:
| You _hope_? Wishful thinking is not a great decision
| making methodology.
| tsss wrote:
| Most things that people post online, voluntarily, is
| essentially advertising of one form or another.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| No paid advertising, whether that involves financial
| compensation, in kind gifts, or something else.
|
| There would be no commercial ads online if google received no
| kickbacks to show ads. There would be no influencers, either.
| I'd be okay with non-profits and government agencies
| advertising benevolent things to us, like vaccinations.
|
| The only hard part is to develop systems to actually ensure
| nobody is receiving compensation if they are showing a product.
|
| I'd also be fine to make exceptions for internal advertising,
| e.g. you're already on the Google website and Google is
| advertising their own products/services to you.
| yunohn wrote:
| Vaccine ads are a great example, in that large parts of the
| population consider them as fake propaganda. Trump supporters
| were up in arms against Biden/Dems for promoting vaccines
| during COVID. With your logic RFK Jr would be very happy!
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Every good rule had exceptions. Advertising vaccines is
| fine.
|
| Frankly, we should advertise more education - then maybe we
| wouldn't have some of our current issues.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| What about just restrict it to advertising on the internet?
|
| The internet is supposed to be an information retrieval tool.
| Advertising's whole goal is to stand between you and the
| information you actually want. And it does so by trying to
| anticipate instead of the thing you want, the thing you are
| most willing to buy next, whether that's actual products with
| money or propaganda. Whereas an ad in a magazine about
| computers offers me relevant ads for products about computers.
| And if you read old ad copy a lot of it is a serious effort to
| try and convince you to buy their product. From some kind of
| argument for it. Instead of simply using statistics and data to
| predict what you will buy next. So this required the product to
| actually deliver something to justify the effort to advertise
| it.
| thfuran wrote:
| >What about just restrict it to advertising on the internet?
|
| Why? I don't see the difference between a webpage and the
| magazine here, except that I guess you're assuming the
| webpage must be showing an unrelated ad.
| kodt wrote:
| Webpages also have the ability to capture far more data
| about who is viewing the ad, with the use of tracking
| cookies, browser fingerprinting etc..
| Epa095 wrote:
| It raises the question, it does not beg it. Begging the
| question is e.g saying 'If advertisement was bad for you it
| would be forbidden. Since it's not forbidden it's not bad for
| us. Therefor we should not forbid it.'
| glacier5674 wrote:
| I've heard so many respectable intellectuals use "beg the
| question" instead of "raise the question" that correcting the
| usage has surpassed pedantry and gone into ignorance of
| "definition b".
|
| It's like correcting someone on the pronunciation of French-
| English _forte_. It just gets you uninvited next time.
| tehjoker wrote:
| You don't need to draw a precise line, just one where things
| over the line are clearly undesirable, like billboards on
| roadways, TV commercials, etc. There are some countries with
| virtually no advertising. People who visit the DPRK come back
| saying it's like "Ad block for your life".
| ghssds wrote:
| Remind me why corporations are protected by human rights such
| as free speech.
| thfuran wrote:
| Corporate personhood exists so that you can be hired by a
| company instead of a specific person in HR or have a
| cellphone contract with Verizon instead of a particular sales
| associate and companies can buy real estate and so on without
| requiring a whole bunch of extra legal work defining all the
| ways in which corporations are legally treated like natural
| persons. That necessarily includes giving corporations some
| of the same rights and duties as natural persons. But I do
| think that corporations have been given too many rights which
| have been interpreted too broadly. The notion that a
| corporation has a constitutional right to spend however much
| money it wants to influence politics due to free speech is
| ridiculous.
| Gud wrote:
| Good question. Yet, unlock origin manage to filter out 99.99%
| of all all ads without blocking actual content, so must be
| possible!!
| Henchman21 wrote:
| This is _precisely_ the sort of statement that derails the
| discussion and makes it impossible to even have. I imagine
| there's a name for this sort of thing, perhaps some exquisitely
| long German word?
|
| So lets do this: ban all ads in print, video, and in-public.
| Make the fine so high that you're going to have to declare
| bankruptcy and close up shop. Or just straight up revoke
| corporate charters. There's your line. I'm happy to start here
| and negotiate backwards. But this needs to be in effect while
| we work it out. Advertising is killing us. I don't need or want
| myself or my family constantly assaulted by ads.
|
| Finally, to be frank I find advertisements a sibling of
| propaganda. I don't want either.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| One man's propaganda is another man's truth-to-power.
|
| There are dangerous consequences to handing the government
| the authority to ban public communication (even about
| mouthwash brands) without very careful scrutiny.
|
| Imagine if you couldn't advertise energy alternatives because
| oil and gas came first and, with advertising banned, we can't
| even talk about the relative merits of installing solar vs.
| buying coal-made grid electricity. The status quo will
| maintain until the planet cooks.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Yep, I hadn't considered things from this perspective at
| all. Thank you!
| makapuf wrote:
| There is a big difference between advertising and
| information. First, most people are generally not being
| paid by big energy alternatives to promote it. Of course we
| can talk about things. What we wouldn't be able is to be
| paid by someone to have a specific _public_ discourse.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > There's a big difference between advertising and
| information
|
| I recommend looking up the videos they made in the 1950s
| about how to use modern appliances, telephones, etc. and
| then noting that those videos were mostly paid for by the
| companies that manufactured those goods because they had
| a vested interest in people knowing how to use the tools
| so they would buy the tool.
|
| > What we wouldn't be able is to be paid by someone to
| have a specific public discourse.
|
| Widecast public communications always cost money. Always.
| Somebody is putting money forward to put a message on
| that billboard, or on that radio, or on that website. If
| we ban advertising but we aren't banning billboards,
| radio, and websites, we are tying off one category of
| communicator. Cynically, I would expect the result to not
| be an end to commercial advertising, but for more
| commercial advertising disguised as other things. I don't
| know that we would be able to disambiguate the two ideas,
| not in a world where, for example, public television
| programs are supported by the Sears Roebuck Corporation.
| sneak wrote:
| "begs the question" means something entirely different than
| "raises the question", fyi.
| rukuu001 wrote:
| I'd draw the line at publishers.
|
| Are you a publisher (ie responsible for every single thing that
| appears on your platform)? You can show advertising. Otherwise
| no.
|
| I know this isn't in the spirit of the article, but I like the
| idea of a ad-spaces and ad-free spaces.
| noqc wrote:
| It's actually really easy, you're not allowed to be compensated
| for your speech. It's free.
| directevolve wrote:
| Not all countries have the same free speech protections as
| America. I can easily imagine a country that simply has a
| bureaucracy whose approval is required to publish TV
| programming, or one that bans banner ads in social media,
| billboards, restricts shop signs in various ways, requires all
| packaging in the store to be black and white, etc. Advertising
| doesn't have to ve banned outright. It could be killed by a
| thousand specific rules targeting the most obnoxious forms,
| provided there wasn't a constitutional issue in the country
| implementing these measures.
| Matumio wrote:
| Yet we have laws against fraud, rape, and so on. Where do you
| draw the line for those? There are some crystal clear cases,
| and there are unclear cases where you could argue forever.
|
| So it is for advertising. You don't need to draw a clear line
| for every case before you can make a law.
|
| I like how it turned out with email advertising, actually: spam
| is defined to be whatever people put into their spam folder.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| There is no line, to fully and strictly ban advertising we
| basically have to abandon democracy and capitalism. Advertising
| and capitalism a so tightly related that you can't have one
| without the other.
|
| You want no ads? Cool, let's familiarize yourself with North
| Korea.
|
| People might want to rather opt for ethical ad standards and
| regulations, something fundamental like... GDPR.
| thfuran wrote:
| >What about a waiter asking you "would you like to try a rose
| with that dish? It pairs very well together. Is that
| "advertising" that would need to be outlawed?
|
| Were they paid by a vintner to say that?
|
| >What about giving out free samples? Is that advertising, and
| thus should be illegal?
|
| To and by whom? From Nvidia to a GPU reviewer: Yes; from a
| chocolate shop to a patron: No.
|
| >What about putting a sign up on your business that says the
| business name? Is that advertising?
|
| No. Do you have any hard questions?
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > This begs the question: how could you reliably distinguish
| advertising from other forms of free speech?
|
| That's a great question, but let's not lose sight of the fact
| that failing to legislate on this is 0% reliable. If we even
| are able to identify and ban 25% of advertising, that level of
| reliability is a massive improvement over doing nothing. Don't
| fall for the perfect solution fallacy.
|
| The reality is that some really basic, careful definitions of
| advertising would identify a huge percentage of advertising,
| without catching any cases that aren't advertising.
|
| As a starting point, if a corporation pays a person or
| corporation to display their corporation's name, product, or
| logo on a physical property, broadcast, or publication when
| they aren't directly selling your product, that's advertising.
| Maybe you can think of some cases where that catches some stuff
| it shouldn't, and I'm open to revising it.
|
| > What about giving out free samples? Is that advertising, and
| thus should be illegal?
|
| > What about putting a sign up on your business that says the
| business name? Is that advertising?
|
| I think this sort of handwringing is pretty silly. I don't care
| about either of those--I _do_ care about "free samples" in the
| sense of auto-renewing free trials, but that's because the
| intent is to trick people into forgetting to cancel, not
| because it's advertising.
|
| Draw the line very conservatively, making a very clear
| definition of advertising that we can agree on illegal, and go
| from there as we see the effects (i.e. what loopholes people
| start to use). Regulation is an iterative process--start small
| and build.
| blindriver wrote:
| More than ads, it's engagement algorithms that are killing us. We
| should outlaw those first and then see where we end up.
| Engagement algorithms do nothing except ruin society by
| incentivizing content creators to lie to us, and to make videos
| that are psychically horrible to society.
| thrance wrote:
| Most likely these algorithms would become useless in an
| advertisement-free world, where retaining users for longer on
| the platform no longers means making more money.
| hedayet wrote:
| Advertising has consequences, and I'm not a big fan of it, but
| it's also a necessary evil.
|
| It's easy to dismiss advertising as just a profit engine for ad
| platforms, but that's only part of the picture. At its best,
| advertising plays a meaningful role in solution and product
| discovery, especially for new or niche offerings that users
| wouldn't encounter otherwise. It also promotes fairer market
| competition by giving smaller players a shot at visibility, and
| by making alternatives accessible to customers, without relying
| solely on monopolistic platforms or the randomness of word-of-
| mouth.
|
| That said, today's ad ecosystem is far from ideal - often opaque,
| invasive, and manipulative. Still, the underlying idea of
| advertising has real value. Fair advertising is a hard problem,
| and while reform is overdue, banning it outright would likely
| create even bigger ones.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > Advertising has consequences, and I'm not a big fan of it--
| but it's also a necessary evil.
|
| At one time, definitely. Now though? We all carry around all of
| humanity's collective knowledge in our pockets. If you need a
| solution to a problem you have, if you need a plumber, if you
| need a new car... you an get unlimited information for the
| asking.
|
| I don't _remember_ the last time I responded to an
| advertisement. If I need things, I search Amazon /Etsy/local
| retailer apps or just go to a store. If I need contractors, I
| check local review pages to find good ones or just call ones
| I've used before. And some of that I guess you could call ads,
| but I mean in the traditional sense, where someone has paid to
| have someone put a product in front of me that I wasn't already
| looking for? Nah. Never happens.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Review pages are often ad based. Unless you paid for it. But
| I still think having to pay for reviews is a better option.
| That way the reviews are the product not me.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Well some of this is a gray area right? If you have a
| listing website for example that lists all the electricians
| in a given geographic area, that's technically an ad, but
| you'd assume someone wouldn't be looking at the page unless
| they were looking for an electrician. I wouldn't call that
| intrusive or unpleasant or worthy of a ban and I don't
| think anyone would.
| hedayet wrote:
| 1. Discovery For known problems, sure! we probably don't need
| ads anymore. But for unknown problems, we still do. When
| you're not even aware that a solution exists, or that your
| current approach could be improved, advertising can spark
| that initial awareness. At that stage, you don't even know
| what to search for.
|
| 2. Competition If you know better alternatives might exist,
| yes, you can search for them. But how do you search for
| better deals, services, or products for every little thing in
| your life? You don't. Nobody has the time (or cognitive
| bandwidth) to proactively research every option. When done
| right, advertising helps level the playing field by putting
| alternatives in front of customers. And in doing so, it also
| pushes businesses to keep their offerings competitive.
| ben_w wrote:
| #1 was true, but I find that this is one area where LLMs
| shine: even when you can't trust the answers directly, they
| can give inspiration to find the right questions.
|
| I'm not convinced #2 is true -- all ads imply the thing
| advertised is the best deal (where "best" is somewhere on
| cheap-quality spectrum), and the same limits to cognitive
| bandwidth mean we can't easily guess whatever points were
| missing from, at best, a 30-second highlights reel.
| gmoot wrote:
| Your access to all of that collective knowledge is funded by
| ad revenue.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| So fund it in a way less corrosive to the human experience.
| 3971671613 wrote:
| Wikipedia isn't funded by ad revenue. Kagi isn't funded by
| ad revenue. Anna's Archive isn't funded by ad revenue. The
| Internet Archive isn't funded by ad revenue. You can
| torrent all the knowledge you'll ever need and all you need
| is an internet connection.
|
| I think we would be fine without ads.
| lukev wrote:
| I disagree. Advertising is a zero-sum game. If _nobody_
| advertised, every solution would be equally discoverable via
| search and word-of-mouth.
|
| It's only when some actors start advertising that the others
| must as well, so they don't fall behind. And so billions of
| dollars are spent that could have gone to making better
| products.
|
| It's basically the prisoner's dilemma at scale.
| logicchains wrote:
| >If nobody advertised, every solution would be equally
| discoverable via search and word-of-mouth.
|
| No it wouldn't. If someone opens up a new restaurant a block
| away there's not going to be much word of mouth when it just
| opened, and even if they make a website, web search will
| prioritise the websites of existing restaurants because their
| domains have been around longer and have more inbound links.
| drilbo wrote:
| well, web search is one thing that would look very
| different
| milesrout wrote:
| IDK what your community is like but if a new restaurant
| opened a block away from me then:
|
| 1. Every one would see it, because they have eyes and leave
| the house.
|
| 2. Every one would be talking about it.
| bdangubic wrote:
| it is 2025, no one just leaves the house. my wife leaves
| the house once per week for an hour to go to cosco :)
| hedayet wrote:
| Theoretically: yes.
|
| Realistically: no, you can't stop big companies from
| advertising. Just having multiple shops bearing your logo
| gives you a level of brand recognition that's hard to beat.
| Even if no one advertised, they'd still find ways to dominate
| the conversation and outshine competitors through sheer
| presence. You're right that it becomes a kind of arms race,
| but in practice, trying to "opt out" often means falling
| behind.
| okr wrote:
| So, if no one competed to get ahead of competitors, by making
| better or cheaper products and to grab the available
| marketshare, we would just have better and cheaper products
| without it? Sounds flawed to me.
| saulpw wrote:
| Why? It's another prisoner's dilemma.
| lukev wrote:
| Not sure what you mean. People would definitely still
| compete on quality and price in a world without
| advertising: much moreso, because they couldn't just spend
| money for sales without improving their product. If they
| wanted to improve sales, they'd _have_ to either get better
| or cheaper.
| echoangle wrote:
| I disagree, one component of advertising is discovering
| things you didn't even know existed. Having to actively look
| stuff like that up would be much harder.
| em-bee wrote:
| i haven't come across a single ad that would have helped me
| to discover things i didn't know existed. and i don't think
| i missed out on anything because of that.
| mulmen wrote:
| Really? I definitely learned about Send Cut Send and
| PCBWay from advertising. I had no idea that kind of
| custom manufacturing was even possible let alone
| affordable.
| ambicapter wrote:
| That component doesn't matter because advertising also
| makes it harder to find what you need, since everyone is
| doing it. If you didn't know it previously existed, how do
| you even know if it will solve your problem like it says it
| does?
| echoangle wrote:
| I see an ad for the steam deck and think "wow, a portable
| gaming console allowing me to play computer games while
| on trips. Very cool!", but I am not actively googling for
| gaming consoles every month to see what's released.
|
| Or movies, basically all movies I went to a cinema for
| were because the trailers were played as ads somewhere.
| I'm not actively monitoring movie releases.
| lukev wrote:
| Nobody is saying there wouldn't be catalogs and "new
| release" feeds... they would just have to be dedicated
| and voluntary and not polluting everything else I'm
| trying to do.
| ambicapter wrote:
| If you go see a movie because of an ad and the movie
| turns out to be shit, are you glad advertising led you to
| discover that movie?
| echoangle wrote:
| If the ad was misleading, no. But I don't just go to a
| movie after seeing an ad, I then look up reviews and
| other information about it. The ad is just useful to know
| that the movie exists and is roughly something I would be
| interested in.
| Gaming8392 wrote:
| And why would you want to discover commercial products (NOT
| "things") that you didn't knew existed? That's some form of
| brainwashing that I don't accept and would gladly get rid
| of.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| I think the answer is obvious, no? Because there may be
| products that can make your life better but you don't
| know about them. It's a bit like asking "why would you
| ever want a medical treatment you didn't know existed?"
| Because I, not being a doctor, don't know of the
| existence of most medical treatments but some may be able
| to cure diseases or other ailments I have.
| Gaming8392 wrote:
| > why would you ever want a medical treatment you didn't
| know existed
|
| That's the American spirit! As a European, it terrifies
| me that anyone would want to give advice to a doctor.
| gameman144 wrote:
| Let me give you an example: I don't mind raking leaves,
| but I hate the step where you have to use the rake in one
| hand and your hand in the other to pick them up, spilling
| leaves on the trail to the bin.
|
| My wife saw an ad for "rake hands" -- I had never thought
| that a solution to my gripe would exist, but for twenty
| bucks a significant source of friction in my yard work is
| gone, and I would have never even thought to _look_ for
| such a solution.
| echoangle wrote:
| Because they could improve your life. To come up with
| good examples, one would have to know more about your
| preferences.
|
| But imagine there's an event (party, fair, game jam) and
| the only way to know it's happening is to specifically
| search for it, there are no posters or advertisements
| online. Don't you think that some people that would have
| wanted to go would miss it because they never even
| noticed that there was an event?
| Gaming8392 wrote:
| > one would have to know more about your preferences
|
| And creepy/stalking advertisers grab all they can learn
| about my preferences. That's the state of ads on the
| internet for the past 20 years and I have never seen it
| "advertised" (haha) as a good thing.
| lukev wrote:
| I'd happily exchange that discoverability for control of my
| own informational environment.
|
| Even if you're right, think about the positive effect
| that'd have on society. The people with cool, interesting
| products would be the ones who put a little intentionality
| and effort into it, incentivizing everyone to be a little
| more thoughtful.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| You already have as much control as you'll ever have. You
| can participate or avoid millions of options. You can pay
| for ad-free options, etc etc.
| Uvix wrote:
| Without advertising you won't _have_ search, because that 's
| how search engines are funded. And you'll also lose pretty
| much all of the online options for word-of-mouth, too.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I pay for search. What do you do?
| phreeza wrote:
| I don't think it's a zero sum game. Some degree of
| advertising will make a product more discoverable regardless
| of whether competitors advertise or not.
| jdietrich wrote:
| _> If nobody advertised, every solution would be equally
| discoverable via search and word-of-mouth._
|
| Most consumers don't do extensive research before making a
| purchasing decision, or _any_ research at all - they buy
| whatever catches their eye on a store shelf or the front page
| of Amazon search results, they buy what they 're already
| familiar with, they buy what they see everyone else buying.
| Consumer behaviour is deeply habitual and it takes enormous
| effort to convince most consumers to change their habits.
| Advertising is arguably the best tool we have for changing
| consumer behaviour, which is precisely why so much money is
| spent on it.
|
| Banning advertising only further concentrates the power of
| incumbents - the major retailers who decide which products
| get prime shelf position or the first page of search results,
| and the established brands with name recognition and
| ubiquitous distribution. Consumers go on buying the things
| they've always bought and are never presented with a reason
| to try something different.
|
| A market without advertising isn't a level playing field, but
| a near-unbreakable oligopoly.
| lukev wrote:
| I think a market without advertising is sufficiently
| "alternative reality" that it's difficult to say what it
| would look like. The giant incumbents are only giant
| incumbents because of ads to start with.
|
| In a world without advertising, our entire cultural
| approach to consumption would necessarily be different.
| Maybe it would be as you say. But, maybe we'd be more
| thoughtful and value-driven. Maybe objects would be created
| to last longer, and less driven by a constant sales cycle.
| Maybe craftsmanship would still be a valued aspect of
| everyday goods.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| Removing ads won't remove people's desire for cheap
| stuff.
| owebmaster wrote:
| > every solution would be equally discoverable via search
|
| I hate ads but there would be no search engines without ads
| unless they were backed by governments
| tcfhgj wrote:
| We don't know, we just can't imagine
| simonsarris wrote:
| > If nobody advertised, every solution would be equally
| discoverable via search and word-of-mouth.
|
| This is unbelievably untrue. Consider clothing brands, large
| and older labels have an immense advantage over newcomers.
| Newcomer word of mouth will never come close to some brand
| that has a store in every mall across the US.
|
| With (say) Instagram ads alone, tiny labels can spend and
| target very effectively to create a niche, and _begin_ word
| of mouth.
|
| Gap and Lululemon would love it if all advertising was shut
| off today. It would basically guarantee their position
| forever because of the real estate and present day
| distribution Schelling point.
| milesrout wrote:
| If nobody advertised then first mover advantage would be
| everything. How would a new product come to market and
| compete with no way of getting new users except word of
| mouth?
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| > It also promotes fairer market competition by giving smaller
| players a shot at visibility,
|
| That's what they said about patents, and so far it just means
| players with more money buy up more patents. Do they not buy up
| more advertising too? Coca-Cola and Google spend huge amounts
| on advertising just to make people feel okay with the amount of
| control they have over everything
| hedayet wrote:
| > That's what they said about patents, and so far it just
| means players with more money buy up more patents.
|
| That's a bit of a strawman argument.
|
| > ...Coca-Cola and Google spend huge amounts on advertising
| just to make people feel okay with the amount of control they
| have over everything.
|
| I agree - some reform is necessary. The current system often
| exacerbates the imbalance, but completely dismissing
| advertising ignores its potential role in leveling the
| playing field for smaller players when done responsibly.
| glacier5674 wrote:
| Sometimes the man really is made out of straw.
| gist wrote:
| I don't think it should be referred to as a 'necessary evil'
| (by the following definition of that term):
| "something unpleasant that must be accepted in order to achieve
| a particular result"
|
| For one thing the term 'advertising' is broad same as many
| words (ie 'Doctor' or 'Computer guy' or 'Educator'). Second
| it's not unpleasant although like with anything some of it
| could be. (Some of it is funny and entertaining).
|
| > Advertising has consequences
|
| Everything has consequences. That is actually a problem with
| many laws and rules which look only at upside and not downside.
|
| Unfortunately and for many reasons you can't get rid of
| 'advertising' the only thing you can do is potentially and
| possibly restrict certain types of advertising and statements.
|
| As an example Cigarette advertising was banned in 1971 on FCC
| regulated airwaves:
|
| https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
| georgelyon wrote:
| The idea of product discovery has value. Advertising funds
| product discovery by taking some of the funds that you pay for
| goods, and funneling that money to platforms and creators that
| are willing to help others discover that product.
|
| There is an alternative model where we simply pay professional
| product discoverers. Think influencers, but whose customer is
| the fan not the sponsor. It would be a massive cultural shift,
| but doesn't seem so crazy to me.
| massysett wrote:
| Businesses will then send the discoverers free samples,
| provide literature, and send "advisers" to talk with the
| discoverers, and you'll be right back where you started.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Is it a consideration with monetary value? Then it's
| advertising, much like how bribing public official is still
| (theoretically) illegal even if you don't do it in cash. If
| it's not, then the discoverer has no incentive to act
| according to the business's demand.
| massysett wrote:
| I'm not understanding why this is a good standard: right
| now, anyone who sees a billboard or a TV ad has no
| incentive to act according to the business's demand, yet
| you want to ban those. So you think it would be OK to
| advertise to discoverers, but not to final purchasers.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| In the billboard case, the consideration is not between
| the viewer and the advertiser, it's between the
| advertiser and the landowner.
| georgelyon wrote:
| For the record, I'm not saying this is the perfect model
| and we should move to it immediately. My only claim is
| that it isn't crazy.
|
| I think the fundamental difference between advertising to
| discoverers vs advertising to consumers is that currently
| "discoverers" (platforms, content creators, billboard
| owners, etc.) make money directly from advertisers.
| Success as a "discoverer" is at least somewhat correlated
| to income (with more money, platforms can be more
| successful; content creators can create more compelling
| content; landowners can buy more billboards). If that
| money is coming from advertisers, you are biasing the
| market to prefer discoverers that can secure the most
| advertiser funding, which in turn preferences advertisers
| that can spend the most on advertising. This isn't
| fundamentally bad, since a compelling product can make a
| lot of money that can then be spend on advertising, but
| it also creates anti-consumer incentives (like marketing
| something that is just good enough not to return as the
| next best thing). On the other hand, if discoverers are
| paid directly by consumers, that biases the market to
| prefer discoverers who identify products that bring the
| most value to consumers for their money.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Those existed once. They were called 'magazines'. But they
| mostly became ad-supported, and then got killed by the
| Internet.
| kiicia wrote:
| Ad business stopped to be necessary and started to be almost
| exclusively evil years ago. If you pay sociologists and
| psychologists to design ,,most effective ad" for you, something
| is clearly wrong. 100 years ago ads were indeed ways of
| discovering products and services. But now ads are almost
| exclusively battlefields for more and more money paid for by
| consumers' anxiety, wellbeing and health when ads are more and
| more dishonest and hostile.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > If you pay sociologists and psychologists to design ,,most
| effective ad" for you...
|
| It doesn't actually work like that. A/B tests learn the
| highest-yielding ad. Psychology isn't robust enough to
| actually predict these things.
| petra wrote:
| For discovery of niche products,The Google search ads(without
| spying) system is a great solution. The issues of monopoly
| should be handled of course.
|
| And regarding word of mouth: Is word of mouth for great
| products really random?
| bofadeez wrote:
| This is free speech. It's not open for discussion.
|
| Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by
| government decree. It preexists the state and cannot be taken
| away.
|
| We hold this truth to be self-evident. We are endowed by our
| creator with certain unalienable rights.
|
| If any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
| right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
| vaindil wrote:
| I feel that this is a very black and white view of the issue. I
| don't want to see billboards as I drive down the freeway, but I
| have no choice (in the US) if I need to get somewhere far away.
| Several states have banned outdoor billboards, should those
| governments be dissolved?
|
| At some point the public interest overrides an absolute freedom
| of speech. We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open
| for discussion" is objectively incorrect.
| bofadeez wrote:
| It's just paraphrasing the declaration of independence. This
| is already the established world order.
|
| You have an extremist point of view that your right to free
| speech is granted to you by the government.
| vaindil wrote:
| I'm not sure what comment you meant to reply to, but it
| certainly wasn't mine, as you have my ideology backwards
| there.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for
| discussion" is objectively incorrect.
|
| This is inherently a subjective matter. It's not _possible_
| to be objectively incorrect on whether or not speech
| protection should be absolute.
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| Of course it's open for discussion. Free speech is not
| limitless.
|
| You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the
| creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how
| long that lasts.
|
| Advertisement is just another form of speech that can be
| limited.
| bofadeez wrote:
| "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of
| religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
| abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
| right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
| the Government for a redress of grievances."
|
| What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash
| claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to
| censor speech.
|
| Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your
| natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from
| a human with a law.
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| There are already established legal limits on speech.
|
| Again, try screaming racial slurs on daytime television.
| You will be met with a fine and/or imprisonment.
|
| I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of congress. I did not
| write the law. I don't particularly like or agree with
| those laws. But they exist, and unless I'm mistaken it
| seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge their existence.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| That a significant proportion of advertising involves
| deceit, coercion, and captive audiences says a great deal
| about the nature of it. The First Amendment codifies the
| right to say what you want, to print or otherwise make
| public your thoughts. That doesn't give anyone, or
| anything, a right to _force_ their ideas into the minds of
| the public or a subset thereof. And while advertisers are
| not quite yet forcing anyone to consume their product at
| the proverbial "barrel of a gun" they are far beyond the
| norms of human communication.
|
| It is not acceptable for a stranger to come up and start
| shouting at you while you're trying to read, or hold a
| conversation, do your shopping, or put gas in your car. So
| why is it somehow acceptable for advertisers to do so?
| Would you want to pay for a course of instruction, some
| unknown percentage of which was not instruction, but was
| actually conducted at the direction of unknown others, who,
| with no regard or concern for your life, liberty, well-
| being or happiness were trying to extract wealth from you?
| Yet that is exactly what happens with much of our media-
| mediated experience of the world.
|
| I think the underlying changes in the technology of
| communication have allowed advertising to grow without
| sufficient thought on whether such expansion was actually a
| public good. Like license plates - the impact of which
| changed radically when the government could, thanks to
| advances in technology, use them to monitor the position of
| virtually all vehicles over time, instead of being forced
| to physically look up who owned what vehicle - the
| explosion of media over the last century has been
| accompanied by an immense shift in the impact and
| capability and intrusiveness of advertising. And it's
| legality needs to be reassessed in that light.
| dahart wrote:
| Free speech has exceptions that include commercial speech
| and advertising, especially false advertising. So are you
| talking about US free speech laws, or about some other kind
| of free speech?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exc
| e...
|
| US law is not a natural right and does not grant the right
| to say anything. You can claim and exercise a perceived
| natural right to say anything, you just won't be protected
| from punishment under US law for saying certain things.
| bofadeez wrote:
| A law cannot remove a natural right. A law can protect a
| natural right or oppress people by using violence against
| them if they exercise their natural right.
|
| One stark example is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in
| the United States. This law required that escaped slaves,
| even if they reached free states, be captured and
| returned to their owners. It went further by mandating
| that citizens and law enforcement in free states assist
| in this process, effectively making it illegal to help
| runaway slaves. Penalties for non-compliance were harsh--
| fines and imprisonment loomed over anyone who aided a
| fugitive.
|
| By today's standards, this is widely seen as abhorrent
| because it not only upheld slavery but forced people to
| actively participate in it, stripping away any moral or
| legal refuge for those seeking freedom. It's a glaring
| relic of a time when human beings were legally treated as
| property, clashing hard with modern values of liberty and
| equality.
| hollerith wrote:
| >It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate
| this right from a human with a law.
|
| I get the impression that this "natural right" term is
| intended to preclude inquiry and shut down discussion.
| bofadeez wrote:
| Right. Just as it's not possible to discuss reinstitution
| of slavery. It's not open for dicussion.
| hollerith wrote:
| What do you have to say to the 40-year-old man who says
| he has a _natural right_ to have sex with 10-year-olds
| and for the state to punish him for it is just as wrong
| as state support for slavery was?
|
| It seems that the only effect this "natural right" term
| has on sufficiently curious interlocutors (who will not
| fall for your rhetorical trick) is to signal that you are
| more stubborn than people who do not use the term.
| bofadeez wrote:
| I would tell the man that he should just take a class or
| read the Wikipedia on what a natural right is if he's so
| interested in it and using it to protect himself. I would
| tell him that commenting on it in this manner embarrasses
| himself and exposes that he has no education on the
| topic.
|
| Any involuntary contract imposed on any individual is
| axiomatically immoral and unethical, as I've said below.
| There's no need to use such extreme examples.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the
| creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see
| how long that lasts.
|
| You're conflating two senses of "free speech". Free speech is
| an ideal, which our society does not fully reach (as you
| correctly pointed out). But in the US, "free speech" is also
| sometimes used to refer to the legal protection from the
| first amendment. And in your example, that _does_ apply. I
| can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would be
| quite illegal to put me in jail for it.
| bofadeez wrote:
| People in other countries also have natural rights. Even if
| they live under oppressive governments, the right to free
| speech still exists. It's the same logic used by
| abolitionists to justify ending slavery.
|
| "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the
| laws or customs of any particular culture or government,
| and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they
| cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit
| their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating
| someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural
| rights.
|
| Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given
| legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and
| restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is
| related to the concept of legal rights."
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| > I can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would
| be quite illegal to put me in jail for it.
|
| This is not true.
|
| Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, "[w]hoever utters any
| obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio
| communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
| not more than two years, or both." Under 18 U.S.C. Section
| 1468(a), "[w]hoever knowingly utters any obscene language
| or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable
| television or subscription services on television, shall be
| punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a
| fine in accordance with this title, or both." Likewise,
| under 47 U.S.C. Section 559, "[w]hoever transmits over any
| cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise
| unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall
| be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2
| years, or both."
| bofadeez wrote:
| The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required that escaped
| slaves, even if they reached free states, be captured and
| returned to their owners.
|
| It went further by mandating that citizens in free states
| assist in this process.
|
| The penalties for non-compliance (evening declining to
| assist with recapturing a runaway slave) was
| imprisonment.
|
| Laws that fundamentally violate natural rights don't age
| well. You need to have a better moral compass. You're
| probably just a teenager so you're naive.
| gibbitz wrote:
| Someone else made the point that ads cost money, so this isn't
| about free speech. I guess making advertising free would be the
| same as banning it since it exists to be sold.
| bofadeez wrote:
| Any voluntary transaction between two conscious, consenting
| adults is axiomatically ethical and moral.
| nehal3m wrote:
| Following your axiom would imply advertisers would need to
| gain my consent in order to advertise to me. That would be
| a decent start.
| bofadeez wrote:
| No that's not a transaction. We're talking about
| contracts. Derp.
| nehal3m wrote:
| If you follow Merriam Webster for 'transaction' it
| absolutely is: "a communicative action or activity
| involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect
| or influence each other"
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > What if we made money illegal?
|
| Good luck.
| otterley wrote:
| > No one is entitled to yell at you "GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR
| YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY" with a dopamine megaphone in your
| bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how to
| say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment.
|
| The author is off their chair. Yes, even commercial speech is
| protected as long as it's not fraudulent. And there are already
| laws prohibiting nuisances. Advertising isn't a nuisance in any
| legal sense; it just comes along with the ride when you willingly
| consume sponsored media.
|
| Listen to and watch only public media, and stop going to
| sponsored websites and using social media if you want to avoid
| advertising. It isn't the most convenient thing, but it's not
| impossible.
|
| If you disagree with this comment, please respond instead of
| downvoting. Don't be a coward.
| ohdearsadface wrote:
| I watch crowd here since 2011, and asking cowards not to
| downvote will probably have opposite effect :)
|
| if you disagree with the tribe, you will be punished by the
| tribe. Some of the tribe can down vote you and so they will use
| this terrible power to silence anyone who might shake tribes
| life view :)
| otterley wrote:
| Being downvoted isn't punishment or silencing. But I find it
| lazy to simply downvote something because you disagree with
| what is being said.
| refulgentis wrote:
| An outright ban on advertising makes for a compelling thought
| experiment, but ultimately it's too simplistic to work as a real-
| world solution. The fundamental issue isn't advertising per se;
| rather, it's the aggressive exploitation of personal data,
| invasive tracking, and addictive attention-maximizing techniques
| that power today's ad-driven business models.
|
| Banning ads altogether wouldn't automatically eliminate
| incentives for manipulative or addictive content--platforms would
| quickly shift toward subscriptions, paywalls, or other revenue
| streams. While this shift might alter harmful dynamics somewhat,
| it wouldn't necessarily remove them altogether. For instance,
| subscription models have their own perverse incentives and
| potential inequalities.
|
| Moreover, completely removing ads would disproportionately hurt
| small businesses, non-profits, and public service campaigns that
| rely on legitimate, non-invasive ads to reach their audiences
| effectively.
|
| Instead of outright banning ads--an overly blunt measure--we'd
| likely achieve far better outcomes through thoughtful regulation
| targeting the actual harmful practices: invasive tracking, dark
| patterns, algorithmic manipulation, and lack of transparency. A
| better approach would aim at reforming advertising at its source,
| protecting individual privacy and autonomy without crippling a
| large segment of legitimate communication.
| mmmu wrote:
| Immediately reminded me of something I read a couple of years ago
| https://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html,
| which has some strong opinions on _why_ advertising should be
| banned
| WalterBright wrote:
| Who is going to know about your product if you cannot advertise
| it?
| galangalalgol wrote:
| People who pay for consumer research type services. "I want a
| general-purpose systems programming language with a C-like
| syntax that compiles to native code. It should be statically
| typed and supports both automatic (garbage collected) and
| manual memory management." One micro payment later I have a
| list of links and reviews. In this case the research is the
| product instead of me.
| esafak wrote:
| Then your company would be beholden to the Yelp's of the
| world. Pay up or have your listing removed.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Nobody is even going to know to put you on their list,
| unless you do marketing and promotion.
| esafak wrote:
| As long as a search engine can find your product, so can
| they. That's their job. Whether they would be able to
| review every candidate is another matter.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Nobody looks past the first two or three pages in the
| search results. That's why SEO is a large industry.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've known several people who developed quite a nice product,
| but felt that promotion and marketing were unethical. They
| failed to move a single copy, and wound up bitter and
| disillusioned.
|
| > One micro payment later I have a list of links and reviews
|
| You won't get on those lists nor will you get any reviews
| without marketing and promotion.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I guess the idea is to ban certain types of advertising. It's a
| fun thought experiment and practical -- it's why some country
| roads don't have billboards and some do.
|
| Going to a conference to promote your product to participants..
|
| Do you allow the shills to shill?
|
| Well, shills gonna shill-- I sure wish I promoted my businesses
| more. It is uncomfortable at times but that's not really a good
| excuse to not promote what you know to be good.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I agree that billboards are a form of "visual pollution" that
| blocks scenic views. But paying for an ad on the side of a
| bus isn't a problem.
|
| No, I don't think we need to argue about where the line
| between the two is.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| We definitely need to argue about the line. This is the
| internet, isn't it?
|
| And, honestly, how do you know? I don't think it is clear
| that all cars are fair game for all ads, nor that all
| billboards should be banned. We might not need a line, but
| we need criteria for value
| owleyey3o wrote:
| > "visual pollution"
|
| I like that framing.
| hatutah wrote:
| I think taxing ad revenue and investing the proceeds in research
| and social programs is the middle path
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I like that a lot. Same reason plastics and fuels should be
| taxed but not outlawed. If some rich dude wants to drive a land
| yacht, he can pay it into the welfare system with his gasoline
| taxes, win-win
| Eavolution wrote:
| I actually in principle have no fundamental problem with
| advertising, but it's execution on the internet I have many, many
| issues with. Putting an ad in a newspaper, or on the side of a
| building, or during a break in a tv show seems perfectly
| reasonable to me.
|
| What I absolutely have issues with is targeted advertising,
| having to modify content to make it advertiser friendly (i.e.
| reasonable people on YouTube having to avoid swearing/use
| infuriating euphemisms for self harm or suicide etc in case it
| makes the video not advertiser friendly), and the frankly
| offensive and unjustifiable amount of tracking that goes along
| with it.
|
| I wish we could ban dynamic advertising (can't think of a better
| term, as in targeted, tailored advertising that is aware of what
| it's being advertised against) and just allow static advertising.
|
| I also wish it could be codified in law that what is shown to me
| on my computer is entirely up to me, and if I want to block
| advertising on my computer, that is my choice, in the same way I
| can make a cup of tea during the ad breaks in tv, and skip over
| the advert pages on the paper.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I agree and I just wish to god I could simply tell those poor
| advertisers what I actually am interested in because they are
| just so consistently wrong and it annoys me.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Ok...
|
| First, it is 100% free speech.
|
| Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the
| exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor
| can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious.
|
| Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some _overriding_
| public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words
| meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc.
|
| Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > First, it is 100% free speech.
|
| It's speech for sure.
|
| > Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting
| the exercise of free speech based on the content of said
| speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or
| capricious.
|
| Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are
| arbitrary.
|
| > Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some
| overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
| or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc.
|
| Firstly, the fire thing is a myth. Secondly, so we're just
| quibbling on "overriding" then?
|
| > Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this?
|
| Well because none of your points are that conclusive?
| hfgjbcgjbvg wrote:
| > It's speech for sure.
|
| Good point. It's specifically paid speech that's the problem.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws
| are arbitrary.
|
| The third rule follows from the second, the government isn't
| allowed to curtail speech except under extraordinary
| circumstances which has been whittled down to basically
| "panic and disorder" and "fighting words". The other two are
| civil torts if I'm not mistaken, you can't be arrested for
| slander or libel. There's others but they are extremely
| limited.
|
| > Firstly, the fire thing is a myth.
|
| Go spread panic and see how fast you get charged with
| disorderly conduct or whatever the equivalent local statute
| is. Bonus points if someone is harmed by your actions.
|
| > Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then?
|
| No, the Supreme Court has some pretty hard and fast rules on
| this.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > There's others but they are extremely limited.
|
| By the laws that people write which the article proposes to
| change.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech
| as the article proposes.
|
| The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to
| things which hold no legitimate public value like child
| pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance
| of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a
| content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like
| what these advertisers say while those other ones are
| fine because of whatever reasons.
|
| They can change the laws but the courts place the burden
| on the government to prove that the problem can't be
| solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they
| really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without
| making the targeted speech illegal.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of
| speech as the article proposes.
|
| Sure you can, you just have to alter one big law.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Good luck altering the constitution to allow for content
| based prohibition of speech.
|
| Now, on the other hand, the Supreme Court can also chose
| to ignore a couple centuries of case law and effect the
| same goal but that's also less likely than changing the
| constitution.
|
| Let's take advertising out of it, what are the chances we
| would even be seriously discussing this issue if TFA was
| proposing to outlaw an entire religion?
| goatlover wrote:
| I'm not convinced modern advertising qualifies as free speech.
| It's often manipulative, used by bad faith actors, used for
| tracking, slows websites down, is obtrusive, disrupts
| concentration, etc.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| None of those things exempt something from speech protection
| in the US, as far as I'm aware. Different countries have
| different laws, but here you are legally allowed to say just
| about anything (including way worse stuff than any of the
| things you mentioned).
| teddyh wrote:
| Are cigarette ads still free speech? Are you saying those
| should be legal again?
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > Are cigarette ads still free speech?
|
| Apparently there was a "significant public health crisis
| associated with tobacco use" according to the google.
|
| I'm not even sure they're universally banned, I don't pay
| that much attention but seem to recall still seeing them in
| the windows of gas stations and whatnot.
| knowknow wrote:
| > The financial incentives to create addictive digital content
| would instantly disappear, and so would the mechanisms that allow
| both commercial and political actors to create personalized,
| reality-distorting bubbles.
|
| ...
|
| > But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for
| 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks
| worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities
| would now improve on that.
|
| Humanity had hatred and insular bubbles a millennia ago just fine
| without advertisements. There was genocides and wars before the
| current form of ads ever emerged. It's a shame that so many
| people think that changing a financial policy is all that is
| needed to change an ingrained human behavior.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| In the last 40 years how many millions of man years have been
| put into manipulating people/breaking down their internal
| barriers by the ad agencies? By social media companies? By
| media companies? In the hundreds of thousands of man years at
| least (but more likely in the millions to tens of millions).
| There have been around 80 billion human years of output in that
| time and sales are a huge part of civilization so easily in the
| 10s of millions of human years of energy put into how to better
| manipulate/break down/re-train people.
|
| If I go play chess against a rando at a park and lose, your
| above argument makes sense.
|
| If I go play chess against someone who spent 150,000 man years
| studying how to beat me, to say 'well, it was all up to your
| mental strength, same as it's always been forever, and you just
| weren't strong enough' is BS.
|
| Edit: The amount of focused research, science, practice,
| experience in manipulation humans is unprecedented. Never
| before have millions to tens of millions of human years been
| dedicated to things in such a continuous, scientifically
| approached way. Yet we act as if the world is basically the
| same as 1980 except we have smart phones/the internet.
| chasebank wrote:
| Define advertising. Studies suggest that as much as 80% of news
| articles may have been placed by PR firms rather than generated
| through independent reporting. This forum is a classic case where
| blog posts are masquerading as authentic content, when in
| reality, they're simply another form of advertising.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| No worries, we can make those illegal too.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| The internet is so full of authoritarians wanting to outlaw
| everything thinking that will work and not even thinking
| about supply and demand, definition of what is actually
| ilegtal and enforcement of that.
|
| It's hilarious. For a forum where people pretend to be smart
| it's absolutely missing critical thinking.
| fixprix wrote:
| This makes no sense. I build a great product. How the hell am I
| supposed to tell anyone about it outside of my immediate friends
| and family? Am I supposed to rely on the network effect to reach
| an audience? That sounds insane.
|
| Capitalism depends on advertising to let people know of the
| product or service that is more cost effective than existing
| solutions. The advertising budget is dependent on knowing your
| product is actually good enough to justify the expense. Without
| advertising, competition itself doesn't work.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, personally, I think you shouldn't even tell your friends
| and family. That kind of "native advertising" is ruining human
| relationships. People should stumble upon your product. If
| someone mentions it to someone else, that alone should be
| grounds to shutter your company. Even so-called "catchy domain
| names" are a deep evil that we didn't have in the heyday of the
| US: the '70s. Your product should be named exactly what it does
| and your company should be named as the concatenation of its
| products.
|
| In this way we can eliminate manipulative marketing and rely
| purely on quality.
|
| Should parents even be allowed to name children or should the
| state choose a descriptive name based on their appearance and
| behaviour? Hard to tell but I think we need to think long and
| hard about manipulative naming in more than just the corporate
| sphere.
| fixprix wrote:
| I actually agree. Telling friends and family will get you
| more of a 'flash in the pan' response. They are not content
| creators or influencers. You need to do advertising to figure
| out if your product/business is even economically feasible.
|
| For example, run an ad campaign on Google, figure out your
| CPC (cost per customer). See if that is even below your LTV
| (lifetime value per customer) plus operating expenses. And
| then tweak all the variables in your product and campaign to
| actually create some sort of sustainable business flywheel.
|
| Having an amazing product and 'waiting' for your network to
| spread the word to all potential customers.. it's absurd to
| think that would work. It's hard enough even with big ad
| campaigns to reach potential customers.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yeah, that's the classic The Mom Test insight innit
| Ray20 wrote:
| >If someone mentions it to someone else, that alone should be
| grounds to shutter your company.
|
| I don't agree. It should depend on whether such a mention
| leads to promotion of the product. We are not barbarians to
| limit freedom of speech.
|
| After any mention of a product by its user, a court should be
| held to decide whether this mention was advertising. Because
| even though the user received a benefit from purchasing the
| product from the company (otherwise he would not have bought
| it and would not have become a user), advertising also
| implies promotion, so the court must first determine whether
| this mention was made in such a way that it could potentially
| induce the purchase of the product by other people, and only
| then close the company.
|
| And it doesn't even have to be a mention. Advertising is
| really mean, like a couple of days ago my girlfriend ate a
| pudding right in front of me. And it was the last pudding,
| and she ate it so well that I wanted one too. And you'll
| never guess what I bought at the store today! Yes, that same
| pudding. Unfortunately, we are vulnerable to advertising even
| when we are fully aware of its destructive nature.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Absolute artwork.
| sidibe wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I think food should all have the
| same packaging color and consistency. If everything was a
| grey paste that came in an unlabeled brown plastic-lined
| cardboard box your girlfriend wouldn't be able to
| manipulate you like that.
| omoikane wrote:
| Submissions from yesterday and 3 days ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580586 - 8 comments
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558438 - 4 comments
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Most people who protest oil use cars, roads and plastics, all
| made of oil.
|
| And people who object to advertising live in a world in which
| their daily lives are provided for by companies that depend on
| advertising to exist.
|
| As PT Barnum said "Without promotion, something terrible
| happens... nothing!" and all the companies that make up our
| economic ecosystem depend on things happening .... sales, which
| don't happen without promotion.
|
| Advertising has been around since Ancient Mesopotamia 5,000 years
| ago and will be around in 5,000 more years.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I don't know why you're being downvoted. "Make illegal the
| parts of the economy I see and I don't like, but not the parts
| of the economy that belong to the same category but I simply do
| not see" is just one of many flaws of low effort insight blogs.
| 3971671613 wrote:
| > And people who object to advertising live in a world in which
| their daily lives are provided for by companies that depend on
| advertising to exist.
|
| "We should improve society somewhat."
|
| "Yet you participate in society. Curious!"
|
| > Advertising has been around since Ancient Mesopotamia 5,000
| years ago and will be around in 5,000 more years.
|
| Someone probably made the same argument about slavery hundreds
| of years ago, but here we are.
| wronex wrote:
| Some countries (Poland?) has experimented with banning
| advertising in public spaces. Think bill boards. This has lead to
| very clean and good looking cities. I don't think the it's
| unreasonable to ban ads in other places too.
| iambateman wrote:
| To go halfway to the extreme of this article, I think banning
| large-scale billboards in my city would make a big difference.
|
| It feels like having a calmer public space is more in the public
| interest than reminding them to drink Miller Lite.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Vermont bans billboards and it is amazing.
| el_memorioso wrote:
| Sao Paulo implemented "Cidade Limpa" which banned posted ads.
| It was said to renew the city.
| mikestew wrote:
| Redmond, WA has a ban on billboards. Locals can see this
| demonstrated by driving 124th St. and crossing Willows Rd into
| Kirkland. First thing you'll see are billboards.
|
| Just got back from a trip to Florida. Billboards along every
| freeway, and 75% of them are personal injury lawyers. If you're
| a resident of Redmond, it is an obnoxious contrast.
| johntitorjr wrote:
| Some cities have exterior walls of buildings covered in ads.
| Other cities have them covered in murals. The latter are much
| more pleasant to be in.
| uneekname wrote:
| My hometown did this, and I was surprised how bad billboards
| can be when I moved away
| gentoo wrote:
| I love this article because I think this is the conversation we
| should be having. Lots of advertising is harmful, some of it is
| useful on balance, and some of it is too hard to ban without
| infringing on other desirable speech. But I do think we should
| be critically thinking about all advertising and outlawing
| certain flavors of it.
|
| Billboards let landlords skim extra money by making the public
| space significantly more hostile to everyone else. Fuck em.
| barbazoo wrote:
| There's a ban here in BC except on indigenous land. Which is
| scattered throughout where I live. So you have these primitive,
| ugly things sticking out in clusters wherever people are
| allowed to put them. I wish people didn't need the money to
| allow those on their land.
| pastor_williams wrote:
| I use ublock origin on Firefox and next dns on my router with a
| block list. I pay for ad free YouTube. My kids had a lesson in
| how annoying commercials are during a trip where they tried to
| watch a BBC animal documentary and had to see the same commercial
| five times in a row because I guess not enough advertisers signed
| up with the provider. I don't like billboards. I'm pretty
| sympathetic to getting rid of advertising and do so as much as
| possible in my own life.
|
| That said this article glosses over the first amendment which
| absolutely needs to be considered because (at least in the United
| States) that is the big barrier to any sort of restriction.
|
| Also the idea of what constitutes an ad. Billboards? What about
| large signs showing where a store is? Are people with big social
| media accounts allowed to tell us about their favorite products?
| Only if they don't get money? What if they get free products?
| We'll have financial audits I assume to make sure they aren't
| being sneaky. No more sponsored videos? What about listing the
| patreons that made the video possible?
|
| How will this be sold to the people that need ads for their small
| business? We'll need a majority support to pass a constitutional
| amendment.
|
| Anyway, this seems impossible but good luck!
| poidos wrote:
| Glad to see this, been noodling on it for a long time. My crazy
| proposal is to make advertising illegal, in the US... by
| nationalizing Craigslist. USList or some such.
|
| No more billboards, no more ads on TV or radio or podcasts or
| when you're on a plane or when you're in an Uber and they have
| that screen. No more ads in something you've _already paid for_ a
| la newspapers.
|
| You want to advertise to, say, all the people in Arkansas? You
| have to pay them directly to post your ad on Arkansas USList.
| Want to target further? Great, you have to pay the county to post
| on their board. Then, people that _want to see your ads_ can go
| to their local board, filter by their interests, and maybe see
| your ad. Want to target all the electricians in a county? Their
| union runs a board and you can pay them.
|
| Cities/counties/states/${localeType}s could opt to, say, issue an
| advertising dividend to their residents.
|
| My definition of advertising is the unwanted stealing of your
| attention by someone who wants you to buy something. Or be aware
| of something you could buy. It takes you out of a context you
| have put yourself in, stealing your attention (and therefore your
| time, which is all we really have in this life).
|
| My stupid USList idea flips this on its head by making it
| possible to only see ads when you want to.
|
| Movie trailers when you're at the cinema are ads, sure. But they
| are ads _that fit the context you 've put yourself in_. If you're
| at the theater, it makes sense for the playbill to list other
| shows. If you're at a restaurant, the list of specials, or a wine
| recommended by your server are both appropriate. Even a list of
| specials or deals _in the window of a restaurant_ , as long as it
| isn't 100x100ft and illuminaated, is fine by me.
|
| But an LED billboard distracting you with a 2-for-1 meal deal as
| you drive down the freeway is _out of your context_ (and
| dangerous! and needlessly polluting!) When we consider the
| tracking and spying that has become possible thanks to online
| advertising companies like Google, Facebook, etc... it 's scary.
| And entirely needless.
|
| Like I said, I've been noodling on this for a while and am
| definitely the crazy anti-advertising guy in my circles. But once
| I point out the prevalence of ads and how it's like being kicked
| in the knees all day, I've found people seem to start getting it.
| I've done more than a few pihole + wireguard installs, UBlock
| origin + Sponsorblock installs, etc.
|
| Fuck ads.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| You don't see how this could possibly be used by unethical
| politicians?
|
| Like, only Company A (who _completely coincidentally_
| contributed to my political campaign) is allowed to advertise
| inside the political boundaries I control?
| yegortk wrote:
| People market themselves when they put on makeup. Should makeup
| be banned too?
| remram wrote:
| Article clearly says "advertising".
| conqrr wrote:
| A lot of corporate environment is perception manipulation. I feel
| it borrows a lot from the general public perception manipulation
| that companies and governments do which is through ads and media.
| There needs to be a better way to go about these things as it
| affects everything. Skills are less values these days, at least
| in Big tech, compared to perception manipulation.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Says the person paying a provider to get their voice out there to
| make themselves look better or influence the world.
| kaponkotrok wrote:
| Don't ban. Educate.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| "What if we made advertising illegal?"
|
| Many small companies would go out of business, that's what. Yes
| we definitely need advertising reform, but advertising is a very
| important part of any business if they want to be successful.
| Making it illegal would cut a lot of businesses off from their
| potential customers. The author doesn't seem to propose any
| alternative solution for this.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| It would also create a lot of new businesses. So allowing
| advertising at the moment has killed all those businesses.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm not convinced by the argument that it shouldn't be considered
| free speech. What exactly we mean by a private place... I dunno,
| but I definitely feel like I'm "going to" content, even if it is
| just digitally, when I'm on a phone. So, it doesn't feel like
| they are invading my privacy. It is an annoying person in public,
| usually protected unless they are violent.
|
| In terms of "let's try this surprising new change in the laws,"
| I'd rather see it become illegal to collect a lot of information
| about people. Maybe we can consider what Facebook/Google and data
| brokers do something like stalking.
| maxclark wrote:
| 99% of consumer tech would die
| krapp wrote:
| Cool. Is there a downside?
| mathattack wrote:
| I like open questions like this. It forces us to think from first
| principles, and potentially tackle consequences.
|
| One problem that would come up... It would be very hard to get
| word out of new (better) products. If you have a great product
| that doesn't lend itself to word of mouth, how will anyone know
| if you can't advertise?
| ambicapter wrote:
| What does "doesn't lend itself to word of mouth" mean? Products
| you can't speak about?
| mathattack wrote:
| There are products people are either embarrassed to admit
| they need (many health care examples) or just don't want to
| share for competitive reasons (a better parts supplier, or
| perhaps even a good SAT tutoring service).
| amarant wrote:
| I had this idea before, but thinking about it, you very soon run
| into some pretty uncomfortable tradeoffs.
|
| The internet would change fundamentally. The article lists social
| networks as things that would disappear, and good riddance, but
| we'd also lose (free) search engines.
|
| Further, I'd argue that some forms of advertising are actually
| desirable. If I'm planning a vacation abroad, and want to make a
| reservation at a hotel, I'd typically go to booking.com or one of
| it's competitors. Those sites are pretty much 100% advertising,
| but how else am I gonna find a hotel on the other side of the
| planet, in a country I've never been before?
|
| You also run into some tricky hairsplitting questions. Where do
| you draw the line on advertising? Are webshops allowed to list
| 3rd party products? Or is that advertising? I don't want to
| outlaw online shopping entirely, it's extremely handy! What about
| search engine results from those webshops? Free search engines
| will disappear, but let's say I have a paid account and search
| for "buy dell laptop". Are the results advertising? How do you
| differentiate and define the cases legally?
|
| I think it's a good idea, but it's gonna be quite tricky to
| implement well. And executing this idea poorly is potentially
| quite bad.
|
| Getting it implemented at all is going to be hard: even well
| executed, this idea is going to have a huge impact on the
| economy, and people are not going to like that. This idea would
| be good for democracy, but ironically democracy is not good for
| this idea.
| permo-w wrote:
| >but we'd also lose (free) search engines.
|
| I doubt this. more likely we'd end up in a scenario where, as a
| way of capturing market share, large companies subsidise their
| search engine with other branches of their business, for
| example, hosting. also since we're speaking hypothetically
| about government interventions, there's no reason that a
| government couldn't set up a publicly owned search engine, in
| fact one may already exist, I don't know
|
| >Further, I'd argue that some forms of advertising are actually
| desirable. If I'm planning a vacation abroad, and want to make
| a reservation at a hotel, I'd typically go to booking.com or
| one of it's competitors. Those sites are pretty much 100%
| advertising, but how else am I gonna find a hotel on the other
| side of the planet, in a country I've never been before?
|
| it's not advertising if it's on their own website
|
| >You also run into some tricky hairsplitting questions. Where
| do you draw the line on advertising? Are webshops allowed to
| list 3rd party products? Or is that advertising? I don't want
| to outlaw online shopping entirely, it's extremely handy! What
| about search engine results from those webshops? Free search
| engines will disappear, but let's say I have a paid account and
| search for "buy dell laptop". Are the results advertising? How
| do you differentiate and define the cases legally?
|
| these are very simple dilemmas:
|
| are webshops allowed to list 3rd party products? yes, because
| you're on a webshop. practically all shops sell 3rd party
| products. advertising is listing products and services on non-
| commercial public places where people haven't chosen to engage
| with products
|
| you search for "buy dell laptop", and the search engine has to
| produces the results that naturally bubble to the top from its
| algorithm
|
| the issue I'd be more worried about with banning advertising is
| taking away the freedom it can allow small creators on places
| like Youtube, where now suddenly they'd be relying on
| subscriptions and/or donations, which can be a lot harder to
| come by than baseline advertising revenue. you'd get a lot more
| begging and pleading, and you'd get a lot more creators needing
| to rely on working under the umbrella of a larger organisation
| like they did before the internet
| kodt wrote:
| >it's not advertising if it's on their own website
|
| Is SEO advertising though?
| permo-w wrote:
| if you're not paying for it you're not advertising
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Reminder for everyone: HN is a advertisement for Ycombinator.
| This "free discussion website" is an ad.
|
| I really think people take so much for granted that even when
| they think about what they take for granted, they still can
| only scratch the surface.
| spencerflem wrote:
| lobste.rs is not though. Its not impossible to have such a
| thing without advertising
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Already solved elsewhere in the thread: Ban unsolicited
| advertising. Product recommendations in places where the
| consumer is explicitly visiting to get product recommendations
| are not unsolicited.
| amarant wrote:
| Ooh, that's pretty clever!
|
| This is why I like HN, people here are smarter than I am
| theamk wrote:
| Can product recommendation sites place a funny video on their
| website, unrelated to products, just so readers can have a
| little rest while doing all this product comparison?
|
| Can product recommendation sites _pay_ a video creator to
| create a funny video for their website? It's a win-win for
| everyone, right? Product recommendation website gets more
| visitors, popular creator gets money, and visitors get to see
| a funny video from popular creator.
|
| If you allow ads on product recommendation websites, most
| entertainment websites will declare themselves "product
| recommendation".
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| What matters is solicitation, which is fairly easy to
| evidence. Running successful entertainment business while
| pretending to be a consumer advice business sounds pretty
| hard, since you still can't take money for product
| endorsement, you can't SEO for your real purpose, and you
| can't promote your real purpose. And somewhat pointless, as
| you're running a paid subscription service either way, so
| your funny video site would probably get more customers if
| it could claim to be a funny video site.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| > I'd typically go to booking.com or one of it's competitors
|
| Thats the difference, you opted into the advertising by
| visiting a website which catalogs hotels. I think most people
| are against "push" advertising where you are fed an ad for
| something you were not looking for.
| djoldman wrote:
| This is a really interesting question.
|
| Some thought experiments:
|
| What do [search engines, social networks, newspapers] look like?
| I assume they'd all be paid and you'd get some free tastes and
| then decide which you'd pay for in the long term (a la kagi).
|
| By removing the third party payer, the service provider has no
| incentive to do anything for them, whether aligned or not with
| the user. That is the big plus.
|
| What about all the money that companies use to promote their
| products and services through advertisements and marketing? Some
| portion of that would probably go to making their products
| better. The rest... from their standpoint, how do they even get a
| potential customer to know they exist? That's tough.
| djoldman wrote:
| Thinking through this more...
|
| All money and energy spent on advertising might be funneled
| into employees and workers. We would see a huge rise in
| promoting a company's products through their employees through
| any medium possible.
|
| If you're a company, you can't pay a third party to get the
| word out, so you massively increase public relations spending
| and attempt to get publications to do articles on your product.
|
| We would see all advertising hide under the guise of public
| relations: PR firms would sky rocket in workforce and there
| would be many more "review" sites and "news" sites. SEO would
| increase even more than it is now.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'm not sure why every state doesn't outlaw billboards. That
| would seem to be a low-hanging fruit. A few states have already
| done it.
|
| Get it on a ballot measure.
| neom wrote:
| Humans, incentives, and capitalism are fundamentally intertwined.
| Capitalism at its core is simply a game we play daily together,
| driven by incentives. Banning advertising doesn't remove
| incentives, just rearranges them.... If you change one rule (like
| banning advertising), the system has is always very quickly
| reorganize around the new incentives. Also, given we live in a
| fully 100% market driven society, trust, not attention, is the
| true currency. As long as humans exchange value, influence is
| inevitable. To effectively improve the system, you can't just ban
| advertising because the idea should not be to try to stop
| persuasion, it's a requirement in a functioning free market
| driven society as it enables many many many downstream effects.
| Veserv wrote:
| The problem is that, as the article mentions, there are "good"
| forms of advertising that are actually meant to inform people.
| Unfortunately the overwhelming majority, and even more so in
| "high-end" advertising, is not that. So, the question is how can
| we distinguish the good from the bad?
|
| One of the key distinguishing factors is that "bad" advertising
| is _intentionally deceptive_. The explicit objective is how to
| overstate colloquially while _technically_ saying something that
| is not untrue if interpreted by a genie or monkey 's paw.
| Advertisers run war rooms and focus groups to make sure that the
| message they are promoting is verifiably and scientifically
| misinterpreted by the target audience while having legal review
| so that if it comes to court they can say: "Technically, your
| honor..." we meant something different than what we explicitly
| and intentionally aimed for.
|
| The standard is backwards. The more money you spend on
| advertising, the more intentionally truthful it should be. You
| should run focus groups to verify that the message is not
| misinterpreted to your benefit the larger the advertising
| campaign. When you go to court and say: "Technically, your
| honor..." you should immediately lose (after reaching certain
| scales of advertising where you can be expected to have the
| resources to review your statements). Misinterpretation should be
| a honest surprise occurring despite your best efforts, not
| because of them and the litmus test should be if your efforts
| were reasonable at your scale to avoid such defective speech.
|
| The standard is trivially assessable in court: Present the
| message to the target audience and ask them their interpretation.
| Compare it to the claims of deception. If the lawyer says:
| "Technically, your honor..." they lose. However, they can present
| evidence that they made reasonable efforts to avoid
| misinterpretation and that the specific form of the
| misinterpretation is unlikely or unexpected.
|
| The standard is easily achieved by businesses. Make intentionally
| truthful claims and have your advertising teams check and test
| for misinterpretation. Err on the side of caution and do not
| overstate your claims to your benefit and the potential detriment
| of your customers. If you think "technically speaking", you are
| on the wrong track. If you would not tell that candidly to your
| relatives or friends, you should probably stop.
|
| It is not like people do not know they are being deceptive, they
| just need to be held to it.
| frogperson wrote:
| I don't know if advertising should go, freedom of speech and all
| of that.
|
| I could see an argument for eliminating targeted advertising. I
| think everyone gets the same message or none at all.
|
| Being able to precisely target a desired group for a desired
| outcome seems too powerful and dangerous to exist as it does
| today.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If we're going to do the _extremely hard thing_ , why not just
| make ads opt-in: Your meal will cost $2.39
| less if you watch an advertisement for Irish Spring soap and
| another for Liberty Mutual insurance. Do you accept these terms?
| pishpash wrote:
| That's typically not the target audience you want, people who
| are not willing to spend money and whose time is worthless.
| ksec wrote:
| >It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public
| discourse.
|
| >Algorithm-driven platforms like Instagram and TikTok that
| harvest and monetize attention, destroying youth, would lose
| their economic foundation.
|
| I guess the author has never been on HN.
|
| This simply assumes Instagram would no longer function because of
| zero ad placement dollars. I guess the author doesn't know how
| KOLs works in product launch and promotion.
|
| I get a lot of stick every time I had to say this, but a lot of
| people in tech, has a very simplistic view that all ads are evil
| without understanding how ad works in the first place. Especially
| beyond digital ad. And to make matter worst any discussions about
| Ad's argument has been downvoted in the past 10-12 years. Some of
| the questions which toomim purpose would be instantly dropped. I
| guess the vibe shift is real.
|
| But if there is one type of ad we should ban. It would be
| political ads. A candidate's legitimacy should not be partly
| dependent on amount of ad money you throw at it.
| greentea23 wrote:
| Start with banning billboards.
| dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote:
| This is as ridiculous as asking, "What if we made agriculture
| illegal?"
|
| You don't make a planet of 8 billion people work without the
| trappings of civilization, good and bad. You certainly don't make
| it work without commerce and freedom of speech.
| ohdearsadface wrote:
| there are people who disagree, they are called communists. and
| yes, they can ban agriculture, no agriculture for you my
| friend.
| dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote:
| True enough, but the math never works out in their favor
| either.
| starfezzy wrote:
| EDIT: When I said "I've felt the same way", I meant about
| outlawing advertising. Propaganda in general should be allowed--
| especially the political kind. But consumerist propaganda (aka
| advertising) needs to be abolished.
|
| ___
|
| I've felt the same way. Some thoughts I had while reading:
|
| > Propaganda is advertising for the state, and advertising is
| propaganda for the private. Same thing.
|
| Rare to see someone else recognize this. Not all propaganda is
| malicious; all systematic spreading of ideas aimed at promoting a
| cause or influencing opinions is propaganda.
|
| > Think about what's happened since 2016: Populists exploit ad
| marketplaces
|
| This feels like calling out conservatives. Ironically, it's
| through relentless propaganda over a century that progressivism
| has become ascendant. We're reminded 24/7 from every mainstream
| institution, that what has historically been radically unpopular
| is ACTUALLY "normal" and "respectable". Indeed, it's only through
| such incessant propaganda that overwhelmingly unpopular trends
| have been able to take hold.
|
| > what poisons our democracy is a liberating act in itself. An
| action against that blurry, "out-of-focus fascism"
|
| What poisons our republic is progressives forgetting that they're
| ascendant and how they got there.
| tagami wrote:
| Some sort of default Anonymity layer may be worth exploring
| swisniewski wrote:
| Digital content is not "published" in the same way as traditional
| content.
|
| Digital content is published by placing data on a computer,
| connecting that computer to the intent, then running software on
| that computer that allows software on other computers to connect
| to it and download that content.
|
| Attempting to ban ads is an attempt to censor the content of that
| communication. It's analogous to attempting to ban the things
| people can say over telephone calls. It would be a clear
| violation of the 1st Amendment.
|
| The Author's points about "Dopamine Megaphones" and "tracking"
| don't hold up.
|
| Posting something online is not the same as yelling through a
| megaphone. And restrictions on tracking are about behavior, not
| speech.
|
| One can outlaw both of those things without unreasonably
| restricting speech.
|
| But banning ads is absolutely unreasonable restraint of free
| speech rights.
|
| If I speak on the telephone, I am allowed to hand the phone to
| someone else for a moment and let them speak. Banning such a
| thing would be unconstitutional.
|
| Many online ads work in the same way.
|
| Similarly, I can take money from someone, and in response speak
| things they want me to speak. Restraining that is also a
| violation of free speech rights.
|
| Just because online ads are horrible, doesn't mean they can be
| outlawed without trampling on fundamental rights.
| bertil wrote:
| I just wish I had an option to say I'm not interested.
|
| If you give me extra wishes, I'd love three options, to either
| say that the ad is annoying, the brand isn't for me, or I don't
| want to be offered that type of product.
|
| The quality of ads would skyrocket if I could just stop seeing
| efforts to get me to be interested in things that I will never
| buy.
|
| Just before joining Facebook, I was living abroad and confronted
| to ads in a language I didn't understand constantly. As my
| bootcamp task, I measured that this was 4% of ads shown to users.
| At the time, this was already billions of dollars. My manager
| deemed that to be a ridiculous and pointless exercise. One night
| at the bar (there were three bars in the London office at the
| time), I mentioned it to a guy who happened to be the big ad
| boss, who immediately prioritized the project, I got a couple of
| smart guys who joined after I was promoted for finding this.
|
| A bit later, I checked the conversion rate by how many times
| you've seen the same ad before. It was a precipitous cliff:
| people click on things they've never seen before. Ranking ads
| from the same advertiser happens to be one of those SQL/Hive
| query that doesn't scale well, so I had to use the fact I came to
| the office early and has 12 hours of uninterrupted server time
| before the daily queries were hammering anything, and I had to
| sample a lot--but I realized I could sample by server, which
| helped a lot.
|
| I tried to mention it to the same guy, who said he knew about
| that problem, but empowering users like I suggested would not
| work: it would shrink the matching opportunities, AI was getting
| smarter, etc. In practice, the debate around privacy got very
| toxic, and Facebook couldn't let people do that without some
| drama about storing a list of advertisers that they said they
| didn't like.
|
| One of Sandberg's trusted lieutenants lost a child late in her
| pregnancy; it was a whole thing. She started seeing ads for baby
| clothes just after, which triggered an optional ban on alcohol,
| gambling, and baby stuff. That's still there. I worked with her
| briefly a bit later (after months of bereavement) and asked if it
| made sense to expand the category. She replied that those were
| two legal obligations, plus her well-known personal drama that no
| one dared push against, so she was able to push for those three,
| but that the company had changed. No other categories could be
| added: at that point, it would be too difficult. Mark used to not
| care about ads, but he started having expensive ideas, notably AI
| (to ban horrendous content); he needed the money, and he started
| to care about raking as much dough in as possible. I had worked
| on horrendous content (instead of ad language) enough to know
| that it mattered, so I was very conflicted. It felt surreal how
| much things had changed in nine months.
|
| All that still feels like a giant waste, not the least how much
| energy goes into making and showing ads to people repeatedly
| swearing at their screen, begging to make that annoying copy
| disappear.
| kujaomega wrote:
| Well, it would be great if we could simulate an ad free
| environment
| asimpletune wrote:
| Better would be to make targeted advertising unprofitable. This
| could be done by requiring data retention to be accounted for as
| a liability on the balance sheet.
|
| E.g. If a business want to run an ad in the newspaper, go for it.
| But if they want to follow me around on the internet and collect
| information on everything that I do, then they should be required
| to record what they collect. Congress could then vote to make
| laws introducing taxes on that quantity.
|
| Once this stuff is measured then appropriate counter measures
| could be taken to discourage socially damaging enterprises.
| senderista wrote:
| So some of the most critical public goods of our age, which are
| currently mostly ad-funded, like web search, video hosting, email
| hosting, smartphone navigation, etc. would become publicly
| funded? Great, I'd like to live in that world too. But this
| article says nothing about how to get there (actually it
| considers the demise of Google et al to be an argument in favor
| without even considering the fact that in the absence of
| advertising, Google's services would need to be either restricted
| to those who could afford them or taken over by the government).
|
| Advertising certainly has plenty of negative externalities, but
| the positive externalities of the free ad-funded services I
| mentioned are absolutely mind-boggling. Try to imagine living
| without them (if you couldn't afford to pay for them yourself).
| gorfian_robot wrote:
| you can pay money for goods and service. (just saying)
| senderista wrote:
| YOU can.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| All ad-funded services are really customer-funded.
| Ukv wrote:
| I'd claim services being ad-funded is not dissimilar from being
| funded by a JS crypto miner - which is to say while it does
| move money to that service, it's on net a waste of resources
| and average affordability would be better without it.
|
| For instead of your ISP spending 20% of their resources
| advertising (because otherwise they'd lose market share to ISPs
| that _are_ advertising), they could likely offer email hosting
| and basic web hosting without you paying any more than you do
| currently. Competition between companies should be directed
| towards productive ends (improving their product) else it just
| becomes a giant zero-sum game of resource wastage.
| theamk wrote:
| ISPs, at least in the US, already offer free email hosting..
| they used to offer basic web hosting too, not sure if that's
| still the case.
|
| Using those is worst idea ever. ISPs are all horrible, and
| the only good thing is you can switch to the other one. The
| last thing you want is to tie your email/website, something
| you can't easily change, to them.
| hliyan wrote:
| 1) Advertising is profitable for companies. Which means that
| you as a consumer ultimately pay the advertiser more than what
| they paid to advertise their product to you.
|
| 2) Wikipedia is not ad-driven, and remains as useful, if not
| more useful than any ad-driven competitor.
| trod1234 wrote:
| This take is extremely ill conceived, and neglects the origin of
| the problems, instead blaming the issue on advertising and then
| pushing forward a narrative whose indirect consequences upon
| integration would quell free speech, and disagreement which
| causes society, culture, and civilization to fail to violence
| based in the natural law.
|
| Why this is happening is beyond simple if you follow the money.
| Compare the Ad industry today compared to the 90s, how is the ad
| industry able to outcompete every advertising venue thereafter?
| Its clear in hindsight that there were companies that had
| constraints, and there were companies that didn't, and this
| wasn't a matter of competition either.
|
| The main difference if you dig into the details is you will find
| that the money being pumped into advertising seemingly endlessly
| without constraint comes from surveillance capitalism, in other
| words the money is subsidized by the government and the US
| taxpayer, through a complicated money laundering scheme. What was
| once called advertising in the 90s isn't what we have today. This
| shouldn't be possible, except in cases of money printing, and
| they all end badly for the survivors.
|
| Banks engage in money printing through debt issuance to collect 3
| times on the amount loaned. They loan out money they don't have,
| the principle of which must be repaid. They get paid a required
| interest on that amount which includes the interest double
| dipping and compounding. Finally the balance sheet gets into
| arrears so far to the point where they require a bailout usually
| once every 8-10 years. A bailout is required to balance the
| ledgers before default and its paid by debasement of the
| currency, without it you get a Great Depression where the credit
| providing facilities have all been burned to the ground like what
| Pres Coolidge did through inaction and lack of regulation.
|
| Legitimate market entities are producers that are bound by a loss
| function relative to their revenue. State-run apparatus have
| suckled up for their share to a money printer entity, growing
| like a cancer since the 70s, and will continue to do so long as
| the slaves feeding it can continue, and that is based upon
| producers capable of producing at a profit (self-referentially).
|
| Legitimate producers cease operation and accept a buyout or close
| down when they can no longer make a profit. This naturally occurs
| when the currency ceases having a stable store of value as a
| monetary property. The money printer apparatus are not exempt
| from this requirement either, and you have growing corruption and
| sustaining shortage when purchasing power fails, which collapse
| to deflationary pressure.
|
| The slaves in this case are anyone that transacts in the medium
| of exchange/currency. History covers this quite extensively as it
| happens in runaway fiat every single time given a sufficient time
| horizon.
|
| When do producers have to cut their losses and cease production?
| With the currency, the point where money cannot ever be paid back
| is that point. The same as any stage 3 ponzi, where outflows
| exceed inflows.
|
| If the GDP > debt growth, smart business will cease public
| exchange and operations. All other business will be bled dry by
| the money printers. You get collapse to non-market socialism,
| which has stochastic dynamics of chaos as an unsolveable
| hysteresis problem based on lagging indicators. The results of
| which include sustaining shortage (artificial supply constraint),
| to deflation, famine, death, and socio-economic collapse. Workers
| that are not compensated appropriately (and they can't be) will
| simply stop working. Letting it all rot.
|
| The time value of labor going to zero also causes these same
| things. That is what AI does.
|
| Without exception, every slave eventually revolts, or ends their
| and/or their children's existence as a mercy against suffering in
| the grand scheme.
|
| What makes anyone think AI accidentally achieving sentience won't
| do something like that when biological systems in the wild favor
| this over alternative outcomes, in this thing we call history ?
| paxys wrote:
| > But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for
| 99.9% of its existence
|
| The key word here is "current forms of advertising". Advertising
| as a concept has been around since the invention of commerce and
| trade, so pretty much since the beginning of human civilization.
|
| So sure, you can have specific issues with browser popups or data
| collection or billboards or whatever else, but saying "any form
| of paid and/or third-party advertising" should be illegal is
| nonsensical. Unless you can make money and trade illegal
| advertising will continue to exist.
| doug-moen wrote:
| Advertising was originally illegal on the internet. It was for
| non-profit activities only (university and industrial research
| and educational activities). When the world wide web first
| deployed in 1989, web advertising was illegal. The rules changed
| some time in the early 1990's.
|
| I do remember a major scandal that occurred in the 1980's when
| somebody posted an advertisement to usenet. At the time, there
| was a lot of online discussion about why this was prohibited. I
| looked this up, and found that the internet backbone (the NSFNET)
| was funded by the NSF, who enforced an acceptable-use policy,
| prohibiting Backbone use for purposes "not in support of research
| and education."
| [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/253671.253741]
|
| So yes, it's possible, because we already did it once.
| hedayet wrote:
| I'd love to have an ad-free internet, sure. But simply
| introducing regulations won't make that happen. There's too
| much money in advertising to stop it, and that money can fund
| an alternative, ad-supported internet that could offer a
| significantly superior experience: FOR FREE!
|
| When we talk about banning ads, we tend to underestimate the
| power of capitalism and consumerism, while overestimating how
| much people truly value the privacy of their online privacy.
| p3rls wrote:
| Noted non-commercial entities like AT&T, HP and IBM were among
| the first owners (renters) of 2nd level domains on .com (for
| commercial) in the mid-80s though. These rules have always been
| murky and mostly used to beat down those of us without lawyers
| on retainer while established players will do whatever they
| want.
| financetechbro wrote:
| Anecdotally, my QoL has gotten much better once I made a
| conscious attempt to avoid being fed advertisements. I've stopped
| using social media and pay for YouTube premium. It's night and
| day difference in terms of my purchase patterns and overall level
| of happiness with the things I currently have.
| qwertox wrote:
| What annoys me the most are advertised contracts like "Only
| 9.99EUR per month*"
|
| * First 3 months 9.99EUR, 42.99EUR per month thereafter, 1 year
| minimum
| Animats wrote:
| Sao Paulo, Brazil, made outdoor advertising illegal. That worked
| out quite well.
|
| The US used to forbid prescription drug advertising. That seemed
| to work.
|
| Ads for liquor, marijuana, and gambling are prohibited in many
| jurisdictions.
|
| The FCC once limited the number of minutes of ads per hour on the
| public airwaves. That limit was below 10% of air time in the
| 1960s.
|
| The SEC used to limit ads for financial products to dull
| "tombstone" ads, which appeared mostly in the Wall Street
| Journal.
|
| A useful restriction might be to make advertising non tax
| deductible as a business expense. That encourages putting value
| into cost of goods sold rather than marketing.
| barbazoo wrote:
| That idea about taxation is interesting, I've never considered
| that angle.
|
| It would be very unpopular with the people I'd imagine.
| Animats wrote:
| Historically, marketing cost was a small fraction of
| manufacturing cost. Gradually, marketing cost took over in
| many sectors. STP Oil Treatment was noted in the 1960s for
| being mostly marketing cost.[1] Marketing cost began to
| dominate in long-distance telephony, in the era when you
| could pick your long distance company. Retail Internet access
| is dominated by marketing cost.
|
| The total amount of consumer products that can be sold is
| bounded by consumer income. Advertising mostly moves demand
| around; it doesn't create more demand, at least not in the US
| where most consumers are spent out.
|
| Think of taxing advertising as multilateral disarmament.
| Advertising is an overhead cost imposed on consumers. If
| everybody spends less on advertising, products get cheaper.
| Tax policy should thus disfavor zero-sum activity.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STP_(motor_oil_company)
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| > Sao Paulo, Brazil, made outdoor advertising illegal. That
| worked out quite well.
|
| it was just a gimmick in the end. yeah the city is cleaner, but
| i doubt there's even the slightest difference in sports betting
| in sao paulo vs places with outdoors, for example.
|
| ...and did the us forbid prescription drugs ads? thats
| literally all i see on daytime tv.
| drekipus wrote:
| > I doubt there's even the slightest difference in sports
| betting.
|
| > Yeah the city is cleaner..
|
| Cool. So it has positive effects on the city, without any
| negative effects on economic outcomes.
|
| Cool. I'm in. Let's implement it everywhere
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| the article discussion is about having impact on addiction
| and behavior... I'm pointing that while there's profit to
| be made, trying to ban advertising in one way is futile for
| that end.
|
| yeah you can make the city pretier or get less banners on
| your sites, whatever. advertising will still happen.
| mateus1 wrote:
| You don't think seeing ads around the city reduces the
| awareness for these things? If do, you're arguing all
| advertising is useless...
| mateus1 wrote:
| You don't value the city being cleaner? I live here and the
| city looks absolutely so much better. For one it has a lot
| less visual pollution and you can drive with less
| distractions... That alone justifies everything else for me.
| jen729w wrote:
| It's illegal here in Canberra, Australia. There's not total
| compliance -- people still stick an A-frame on the street, and
| of course real estate agents will always put something in a
| front lawn -- but there aren't giant billboards that you see
| everywhere else. It's really refreshing.
| NoahZuniga wrote:
| Making advertising non tax deductible has the effect of making
| it marketing ~20% more expensive, which would lead to about 20%
| less marketing. But not really. It doesn't really cost YouTube
| anything to play an add, so YouTube ads get 20% cheaper, and
| you see the same amount of ads.
|
| Also this would be hard to implement. Tax law has a hard time
| discriminating costs. What if all the marketing is done by an
| Irish subsidiary?
| dustinmr wrote:
| The author is identifying a technical problem (it's become so
| cheap/easy to insert ads they're everywhere). Technical
| answers? How about require that it be easy to opt out, or
| simply remove the ads from the content. Codify ad-blocking
| software.
| hollerith wrote:
| What if every service offered on the internet supported by
| advertising were legally required to offer an ad-free version
| (which is allowed to carry a monthly fee)?
| dpc_01234 wrote:
| Just tax it.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Not surprising that people react as negatively to this in this
| forum as they do. Most people here would lose their jobs after
| all. Though keep in mind that once the dust has settled you'd
| also have the opportunity to do something more meaningful with
| your life than AB testing ways to make number go up faster.
| stego-tech wrote:
| Just from the headline alone: _oh please dear god yes_.
|
| The internet became _usable_ after implementing the Pi-Hole. So
| much noise, so much wasted bandwidth, so many unnecessary
| lookups, gone with a Raspberry Pi and a few packages.
|
| While other commenters are getting into the technical weeds of
| things, the reality is that the OP is right. Ads don't inform,
| they manipulate. They're an abusive forced-marriage that we
| cannot withdraw from even with ad and script blockers, because so
| much of society is built upon the advertising sector that it's
| impossible to fully escape them. People like the OP and us are
| mocked for moves to block billboards in space as being "alarmist"
| or out of touch, yet driving along any highway in the USA will
| bombard you with ads on billboards, on busses, on rideshares, on
| overly-large signs with glowing placards, in radio and
| television, on streaming providers who raise our rates on what
| used to be ad-free packages.
|
| Advertising is cancer, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
| Let's get rid of it.
| junga wrote:
| > Advertising is cancer, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
|
| That's the most "hacker" newsy thing to me. Whenever
| advertising critical articles come up, there's a large
| percentage of people commenting pro advertising. Yeah, I get
| it, you don't bite the hand that feeds you but come on. Does
| working in ad tech somehow influence your brains like the ones
| you are targeting?
| stego-tech wrote:
| I don't think it's exclusive to advertising. Humans in
| general desire stability (myself being no exception), and
| anything that disrupts a system they've become accustomed to
| can very quickly become perceived as a threat.
|
| My theory is that the people who fight against changing the
| status quo are just _fundamentally opposed to change itself_
| , not necessarily _supporting_ the system as it currently
| stands. They know the ins and outs of the _current_ system,
| and changing it means they have to dump knowledge and re-
| learn things - which they 're fiercely opposed to doing. The
| enemy you know, over the enemy you don't, in a manner of
| speaking.
|
| Those of us who can visualize futures starkly different than
| a continuance of the present day are a threat to those people
| who demand indefinite complacency and an unchanging world.
| Unfortunately for them, the universe is chaos and change is
| inevitable - so finding your own stability amidst the chaos
| is a skill more people need, such that necessary change might
| be embraced.
| Alex-Programs wrote:
| That's not why I oppose banning advertising.
|
| I've made a product. The people who use it, like it. But I
| have no online following or presence, and I'm really not
| the kind of charismatic person who could build one. All the
| "community" places where I could share it in good faith are
| incredibly hostile to self promotion, I think because of
| the wave of people selling vibecoded openai wrappers as
| language tutors.
|
| I can pay PS40 for reddit ads, and while it has negative
| ROI, it gives me lots of feedback that I can use to
| iterate. Sure, my project seems to be a commercial dead end
| - people find it valuable, but most people don't find it
| quite valuable enough to pay for the high cost of
| translation - but I still think those ads had a lot of
| value.
|
| That said, I use an adblocker myself, I wish more
| intelligent people worked on rockets rather than targeting
| algorithms, and I do agree that ads have a negative effect
| in a lot of places - it's just that they do have a real
| (and IMO moral) utility in some places. If you banned
| advertising for everything, you'd just encourage bribing
| moderators to let you self-promote or ensure only people
| with existing followings can make things.
|
| (it's https://nuenki.app, if anyone's curious)
| -___-_-_-- wrote:
| Here's my hot take on this.
|
| If I want a product, it better be out of my own free
| will. If I wanted AI assisted ways to learn languages,
| I'd be perfectly capable of researching what's out there.
| If I see an ad, _out of principle_ I won 't pay a cent
| for anything, unless maybe it's literally the best thing
| since sliced bread.
|
| Ads provide negative value to me as a consumer, therefore
| I want them banned.
|
| But the economy! But the jobs!
|
| What's the purpose of both of these? To address people's
| needs and wishes, or to plant new needs and wishes in the
| brain of consumers to then extract capital out of them?
|
| If a product is worth creating it could be created,
| bought, and made profitable in an ad-free society as
| well. The problem is it's an arms race. A good product +
| ads will always win against an equivalent product
| without. Everybody has to do ads because everybody else
| does them. So going ad-free only works if everybody does
| it at once, and I believe that requires regulation. Of
| course I'm also not opposed to you buying ads to promote
| your product, I'm opposed to the fact that the market
| forces you to.
|
| Trees haven't figured out how to all reach sunlight
| without using enormous resources to grow high. States
| haven't figured out how to all stay secure without
| spending enormous sums on defense. This situation is
| similar but I feel we have a good shot at saving
| ourselves a whole lot of trouble by heavily limiting the
| ways in which advertising can legally be done.
| stego-tech wrote:
| You're conflating promotion and advertising - as do most
| people.
|
| Billboards, commercials, and advertisements fall under
| "advertising", the act of trying to coerce consumers into
| buying a thing or patronizing a product through
| manipulation.
|
| _Promotion_ , on the other hand, actively involves
| someone talking directly with someone else about their
| product, or using some other form of demonstrable
| evidence of your product or works.
|
| Let's take a few examples:
|
| * An artist sharing their latest work to their social
| media feeds is _promotion_ , while shoving it in your
| face with incentives to buy it at their website on a
| random forum post is _advertising_.
|
| * A lawncare company that asks a client if they could
| leave a small sign behind _promoting_ their services
| after a job is fine, but buying _advertising_ time on a
| television spot with CGI graphics and staged visuals is
| not.
|
| * Demonstrating your product at a kiosk at a mall or
| event is _promotion_ , but spending money on a pre-roll
| YouTube spot with imagery deliberately cultivated to
| induce purchase is _advertising_
|
| I am fine with _promoting_ something; I am not fine with
| _advertising_ something. Promoting often just takes time,
| which anyone can reasonably do; advertising costs money,
| and equating that to speech means admitting _money is
| speech_ , which I think most folks would agree is a _very
| bad thing_.
|
| If you're encountering issues with promoting your
| product, it's likely because it's coming off as
| advertising. Instead of saying "I built a new app over at
| this URL and would love your feedback", be more specific
| with what you're asking for: "Is my business model
| viable?", "Is the UX legible and accessible by folks
| using screen readers?", "Could someone try penetrating my
| tech stack before I go live?"
|
| Promotion as a way of soliciting feedback has to be done
| in a specific way, else it is advertising. That's why
| forums and sites are _very particular_ about anti-
| advertising /anti-spam/anti-promotion rules. As long as
| it's not the equivalent of shouting, "HEY, LOOK AT ME"
| through a megaphone that's unsolicited by the forum or
| venue inhabitants, _generally_ most folks in my
| experience are going to be fine with it.
| plankers wrote:
| Trotting this out again because somehow it hasn't completely
| saturated the internet yet:
|
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
| his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
| --Upton Sinclair
| snailmailman wrote:
| Youtube so badly wants me to pay for premium. But the ads they
| show me are almost entirely scams and questionably legal
| content. Ads for guns. Ads for viagra knockoffs. Ads for "stock
| market tips" that use AI generated celebrity impersonations.
| Ads for "free money the government isn't telling you about".
|
| It's _constant_ and ever-increasing. I stopped watching a 30
| minute video recently after the 5th ad break just over 10
| minutes in.
|
| On desktop uBlock still works in Firefox at least. But I've
| basically given up YouTube on iOS.
| mbirth wrote:
| The trick with YouTube on iOS is to delete the app and use
| the website in Safari instead. There, you can use Wipr 2 or
| other ad blockers.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I feel naive saying this, but a certain percentage of the ads
| on YouTube seem to contravene what would be legal of they
| were shown on television - in Australia at least.
|
| It feels like standover tactics, showing the worst of the
| worst unless you pay up.
|
| I should also at least admit that recently,Like the last 12
| months, those greasy-type ads are less common, having been
| replaced with more television-style ads, although they last
| longer. Still an improvement overall though.
| tsycho wrote:
| Serious question: Why don't you pay for YouTube premium?
|
| Isn't it hypocritical to want YouTube to offer you its
| content for free? If the content is valuable to you, you
| should be willing to pay for it. If not, just stop watching
| YouTube.
| hanspeter wrote:
| It's not only hypocritical, it's nonsensical in this
| discussion.
|
| It's obvious that if advertising was made illegal, we would
| need to pay for all those services that we want to use.
| YouTube premium is the best example of how that would
| actually work.
| mbs159 wrote:
| > If the content is valuable to you, you should be willing
| to pay for it
|
| But I do, by supporting those creators through Patreon.
| Paying for YouTube Premium sounds like a bad deal since I'm
| not directly supporting the creators for which I go to
| YouTube in the first place.
| carterpaul wrote:
| YouTube Premium dishes out your revenue to creators based
| on how much you watch. See Linus Tech Tips' video on
| their income streams (skip to 4:40):
| https://youtu.be/GeCP-0nuziE?si=xH5gTvzglaPlQyJ4
|
| Sure, YouTube probably takes more off the top than
| Patreon. But YouTube also splits it up based on who
| you're watching. I probably watch 30+ YouTube channels
| per week, some of which I find on the explore page and
| don't even know the name of. I would never subscribe to
| 30+ Patreons. I think YouTube Premium is a good
| compromise.
| ninkendo wrote:
| The creators you're paying on Patreon aren't hosting
| their own videos though, YouTube is. Hosting videos isn't
| cheap, who should cover that cost?
|
| I get that YouTube doesn't give enough of a percentage of
| profits to the creator, but the alternative should be a
| different video hosting platform that _does_ give more
| profits to creators. Not patreon, which offers nothing in
| return. (It's a glorified payment processor and doesn't
| actually do any video hosting.)
|
| That there are vanishingly few alternatives to YouTube in
| terms of actually hosting videos (I know of Vimeo and, I
| guess nebula? Only because it gets continually pushed on
| me by creators) maybe tells you that the act of hosting
| videos at scale is kinda hard to do profitably. Or else
| there'd be tons of alternative options.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| Being cheap and also having standards of what you'll watch
| is not hypocritical.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| YouTube is great if you pay for it, which I do. Any time I
| open it on a device I'm not logged in and get an ad i instant
| close.
| 93po wrote:
| you can also use a VPN when paying to pay significantly
| less, though ive heard theyve cracked down on that a bit
| more recently
| Toorkit wrote:
| I can still remember ads on TV from when I was a kid. Mind
| worms, embedded deep. And it makes me angry.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| _Inflamed hemorrhoidal tissue_
| y-curious wrote:
| Call education conn-ec-tion!
| globular-toast wrote:
| I've been using browser ad block for more than twenty years
| now. Back then it was to block flashing banners etc. I use
| Firefox everywhere so have it on my phone too. Due to this I
| haven't realised how bad it's become. I didn't even realise
| YouTube had ads until recently and how ridiculous they are.
|
| I run DNS blocking at home which helps somewhat with shitty
| devices like Apple that don't give users any control. But my
| partner was looking at a local news site on her phone on the
| train the other day and I couldn't believe it. Literally an ad
| between every single paragraph plus one sticky ad at the
| bottom. It was like twice as much ad as content. Sickening.
| elf-dwarf wrote:
| Brave browser on mobile solves the problem for me
| vharuck wrote:
| >People like the OP and us are mocked for moves to block
| billboards in space as being "alarmist" or out of touch, yet
| driving along any highway in the USA will bombard you with ads
| on billboards, on busses, on rideshares, on overly-large signs
| with glowing placards, in radio and television, on streaming
| providers who raise our rates on what used to be ad-free
| packages.
|
| I lost a lot of faith in the decency of others a month ago when
| I heard a song on my car radio, looked at the display to see
| the artist and title info that comes from the radio station,
| and was met with "Bounty the quicker picker upper." That slogan
| stayed up for at least a minute. Every possible channel of
| communication will be sold for ad space.
| tptacek wrote:
| Here's how not constitutional this idea is: municipalities can't
| even ban circular flyers, which is essentially junk thrown onto
| the doorsteps of everybody's houses, junk nobody wants, because
| the First Amendment proscribes those ordinances.
| hollerith wrote:
| Billboards however are banned in Vermont and Marin County, CA.
| titaphraz wrote:
| A start would be banning of misleading statements and half-
| truths.
|
| A panel of randomly selected 100 people will be the judge and
| jury.
| glacier5674 wrote:
| What's the threshold they have to meet to ban? Half of them,
| give or take, will probably not be able to recognize the lie,
| and a sizeable portion of them would likely not be convinced in
| deliberation. It's also subject to nullification, e.g. "I know
| it's a lie, but it 'owns' the people I don't like"
| titaphraz wrote:
| Yep, it's hard. Let's deter it in the first place with
| imprisonment for the CEO if convicted. Ads will be amazingly
| informative.
| kelnos wrote:
| I've been saying this for years. It would be great to make
| advertising illegal.
|
| Advertising is just psychological manipulation. Any argument that
| there's "good" advertising that respects the target and is merely
| informative... well, maybe there is, but it's overshadowed by the
| other 99.9% of the garbage.
|
| Implementing this feels impossible, though. There would be
| disagreement as to what constitutes an ad. I disagree with the
| author that advertising isn't an exercise of free speech; I think
| that would be a huge roadblock in any country that enshrines free
| speech rights.
|
| But man, that would be great.
| ndr wrote:
| Almost every single time speech is limited someone finds a way to
| weaponize that limitation.
|
| In most jurisdictions there are, at times weaponized,
| limitations, and that's the tradeoff those jurisdiction landed
| on.
|
| I don't see how this proposed limitation could produce acceptable
| weaponizations.
|
| Just think for a second how outlandish these would sound with
| such limitation in place:
|
| - The ban on "persuasive content" is used to shut down political
| dissent labeled as "unwanted influence."
|
| - Independent journalists are silenced when their reporting is
| categorized as "promotional advertising."
|
| - Fundraising for humanitarian causes is outlawed as
| "solicitation advertising."
|
| - Religious discussions are prohibited as "advertising spiritual
| beliefs" or "donation to the organized religion."
|
| - Medical awareness campaigns are shut down as "advertising
| health concerns."
|
| - Environmental activism is criminalized as "advertising eco-
| agendas."
|
| There would be just no end of these.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| However fully unregulated speech also leads to issues like
| insults or forms of propaganda which encourages violence.
| History is full of cases where violent speech was enabler of
| physical violence. From school bullies to violence of the
| German Third Reich where speech was an enabler.
|
| Thus as always in society finding the right approach and right
| way of regulating isn't easy.
| noworriesnate wrote:
| There's a strong tendency to have a bias towards the status quo
| because we're afraid of things being worse. And that bias can
| make us afraid of even trying to change things for the better.
|
| All of the problems you listed can be prevented from becoming
| endemic by having clear definitions in the law and generally
| reasonable judges. But if our judges are generally
| unreasonable, we are screwed either way. So what's the downside
| to setting up a clear law against advertising?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| There's no such thing as a clear law, hence the need for
| judges. Too many people in this thread have never taken a
| contract law course if they think you can just "write good
| laws".
| taberiand wrote:
| Right, but they are also weaponising the lack of limitations -
| advertising is out of control and damaging society. Damned if
| you do, damned if you don't?
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Author would love this song:
|
| https://genius.com/Minutemen-shit-from-an-old-notebook-lyric...
| gameman144 wrote:
| This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like
| "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or
| practices in lobbying that are damaging to society, but lobbying
| _itself_ (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific
| perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.
|
| Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there
| might be something that adds value to your life that someone else
| is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't
| _know_ about it.
|
| In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails
| about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning
| advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some
| size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article
| felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Why should we be open to nuance when we're being actively
| manipulated? Cease manipulating me and I will hear them out on
| the nuances, provided the advertisers can articulate it.
| gameman144 wrote:
| Someone telling you about a product is not manipulating you.
| Tracking or certain ad practices _might_ be manipulative, and
| it 's fine to push back against or ban that manipulation, but
| that is not at all inherent to advertising.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Feeding people lines about what "they need" or what their
| neighbors might be doing is manipulative. All advertising
| _attempts_ to be manipulative, IMO.
|
| But, I'll play along for a moment: If trying to convince
| people they _need_ something that oftentimes they simply
| don't isn't manipulation, then what is it? It isn't simply
| _informative_ because it's attempting to change one's mind.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I think we might disagree in terms of the kinds of
| advertising we're talking about.
|
| The best advertising for me is showing me a product and
| showing me how it's used -- the "Coca Cola will make you
| have friends and have a good time" style ads could be
| construed as manipulative, I totally get that, but if I
| see an ad that just says "here's the product, here's what
| it does" for a product that _actually_ solves a problem I
| have, that's pretty great in my book, and is a win-win
| for me and whoever makes the product.
| barnabee wrote:
| > "here's the product, here's what it does"
|
| Belongs in catalogues, store listings, the manufacturers
| website, product search engines, not forced into view
| when you're trying to do something else.
|
| It'd be perfectly reasonable even to have sites listing
| or aggregating new and updated products, or social media
| accounts that post about interesting [new or otherwise]
| products, as long as they're not paid to place or promote
| products, too.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| If I saw ads that simply informed that would be amazing.
| I never see those ads. At all.
|
| What I see are endless billboards, posters, murals on the
| sides of buildings, cars, busses, etc. I see it
| everywhere. Its inescapable!
|
| Must be nice living in that different world. Can I get a
| ticket to wherever you are??
| caseyy wrote:
| I'd say you're underestimating how much anxiety there is in
| the world because advertisers and influencers bombard
| people with the idea that they are not enough, or that they
| don't have enough.
|
| It becomes very clear when you move to a different country
| where you don't speak the language. Suddenly, advertisers
| cannot tell _you_ that _you_ need their products. And it is
| very emancipating mentally.
| gameman144 wrote:
| Oh totally, don't get me wrong, I _hate_ the majority of
| ads (playing the "guess what this ad is even for" game
| reveals just how terrible most ads are.)
|
| The nuance for me is that sometimes (mostly online) I see
| ads for a tool or game or product that just shows it in
| action, and while 95% of the time I _still_ don 't want
| it, there's the small fraction of the time where I think
| "Hey that actually looks nice" (and I'm fine with the
| other 95% that just show me the product).
|
| Commercials for insurance are basically _always_ terrible
| though; if you 're advertising anything besides rates,
| coverage, or service, then what does it have to do with
| your product?
| Henchman21 wrote:
| This is interesting and I think it speaks to your point
| about us having a disagreement in terms. I don't see many
| ads online. I've been very happy with my pihole + ublock
| origin + firefox setup. Honestly if I see ads online I
| take action to make sure I don't see them anymore,
| because that's in my control! My gripe is almost entirely
| with IRL "meatspace" ads, though I'd be happy to give up
| the arms race online.
|
| It seems like we mostly agree after all?
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Are you regularly exposed to ads? I don't understand this
| at all. Advertisement has next to nothing to do with
| "telling you about a product" which is why old ads are
| funny today. They hadn't figured out a lot of the
| techniques we use to elevate advertising so far beyond
| that. An easy example, which some old ads even caught onto,
| would be associating the product with something else the
| consumer desires. Ever see an ad for a car with a happy
| family in it? Ever see an ad for a sportier car with a guy
| driving around an attractive lady? Is the happy family
| related to the function of the car? Of course not; the goal
| is to tie the thing the consumer wants (a happy family) to
| the thing they don't yet (the car).
| walleeee wrote:
| > lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your
| specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable
| function.
|
| If it were a truly demotic activity you would have a point. But
| as it is, lobbying (in the US at least) is almost exclusively
| by/for large/moneyed interests, and the part of it which isn't
| is considerably less effective than that which is.
| milesrout wrote:
| Every time you communicate something to a politician, submit
| a submission on a Bill, or write a letter to the editor
| criticising a political policy, you are lobbying.
|
| That you don't bother engaging and others do doesn't give
| them an unfair advantage.
|
| That being said, the US system sounds like a shitshow of
| bribery and corruption.
| SebastianKra wrote:
| > Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there
| might be something that adds value to your life that someone
| else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you
| don't know about it.
|
| Journalists exist.
|
| The best way to learn about new products is through
| influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its
| superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe
| influencers to promote their products. Companies can also
| promote a product by sending it to reviewers.
|
| So ads are not the only way to inform consumers, and the
| benefits IMO don't outweigh the cost.
| milesrout wrote:
| There are a very few areas where there are good reviewers.
| Sadly most "reviewers" just repeat marketing materials, read
| stats from the box, and talk about themselves.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > The best way to learn about new products is through
| influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say
| its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~
| bribe influencers to promote their products.
|
| In the same sentence, you give a possible solution and the
| reason why it wouldn't work.
|
| Ban ads and companies are going to pay more and more for
| sponsored content to the point you can't differentiate what
| is legit from what is not.
| barnabee wrote:
| Sponsored content should be considered an ad too and banned
| in this scenario.
|
| Many "influencers" would have to go back to being amateurs.
| That's ok. Some would accept backhanders, but they risk
| prosecution, which is actually possible [0].
|
| [0] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/government-orders-
| maori-infl...
| SebastianKra wrote:
| I'd expect the law to broadly define an ad as any message,
| where the author has a conflict of interest.
|
| This would also include down propaganda on social media.
|
| We could then work backwards to define exceptions such as
| politicians speaking in moderated debates, signage in
| shops, etc...
|
| Defining this correctly will be difficult, but that's the
| case with any law. GDPR was watered down, and I'm still
| glad it's there.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Anyone who has found out about a useful product through
| advertising that you wouldn't have know about otherwise,
| purchased it, and been pleased with your purchase, raise your
| hand.
|
| Anyone?
|
| This whole "advertising is useful" thing sounds like the
| spherical cow of marketing to me. It might make sense in
| abstract but it doesn't reflect reality.
| charcircuit wrote:
| There's several games I've enjoyed from seeing ads for them.
| I would have never seemed them out on my own.
| milesrout wrote:
| Yes, happens often. Plus all the products that have been
| recommended by (a friend that became aware of them through)+
| advertising. And all the products that only exist because of
| advertising.
|
| Also: sales. I have bought things in sales that I would not
| have bought otherwise (because its value to me is higher than
| the sale price but lower than the normal price) where I was
| only aware of the sales from ads.
| mindwok wrote:
| Many people, otherwise advertising wouldn't work at all and
| the industry wouldn't exist. Even if you hear it via some
| other source, they may have heard of it via some form of
| advertising.
| wat10000 wrote:
| That doesn't follow. Most advertising exists to make you
| more likely to buy the product, not merely to inform you
| that it exists.
| bdangubic wrote:
| one follows the other though, no? how can you make me buy
| something if I've never heard of you?
| wat10000 wrote:
| Sure, if nobody has ever heard of you then making them
| aware of you is a necessary step in making them more
| likely to buy your stuff.
|
| But that doesn't mean it's a major benefit of
| advertising. There are plenty of other ways to discover
| products, and most advertising is done by established
| brands to people who already know about them. How much
| advertising do Apple, Coca-Cola, Toyota, etc. do? How
| many people are unaware that their products exist?
| bdangubic wrote:
| actually discussed them - here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269#43598451
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It is useful in specialist domains. If you love fashion then
| fashion magazine ads are worth studying, _because you read
| them with a critical eye_. If you 're into any sort of nerd
| hobby (model trains, synthesizers, board games...) then the
| specialist magazines/video channels/forums for that hobby are
| interesting, again because you have a critical eye. Sure,
| there are ads that target the newbie with 'the first and last
| ______ you'll ever need!' but as you get more experienced in
| the hobby you quickly learn to distinguish which
| manufacturers are selling the dream vs offering their
| product. This remains true even on forums for particular
| vendors that have a cult following. Likewise for many
| professional trade news outlets.
|
| But it only works where you have specialized focus and
| experienced/informed consumers that are able to separate the
| sizzle from the steak. For example, doctors and other medical
| professionals are generally well qualified to assess the
| claims of pharmaceutical advertising, consumers are not -
| even though I am comfortable reading the fine print in such
| ads and even reading papers about clinical trials, I still
| rate my evaluative ability as mediocre compared to a
| professional.
|
| Mass market advertising for general consumers is generally
| cancer, imho.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I think we should separate ads that people seek out from
| ads that people put up with. They're very different in
| purpose and effect. When the ad is the thing you actually
| want to see, I have no problem with it. The issue is ads
| that you'd rather not see, but are either attached to
| something you do want to see, or are placed where you have
| no choice.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I'd be happy to give an example I gave below: rake hands.
|
| I hate the step after raking where you have to use the rake
| and one hand to carry the leaves to the bin. There was an ad
| for "rake hands" where you just hold a small hand-formed rake
| in each hand and scoop them both.
|
| Twenty bucks, vastly improved yardwork experience, and I
| would have literally never thought to look for something like
| that.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| My hand is raised
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| >is a valid and desirable function
|
| No I don't think so. I would genuinely guess that 97% of the
| ads I see are irrelevant garbage or, more commonly, bids by
| products I know to raise awareness to increase the probability
| of their sale. I discover the vast majority of what I care
| about through word of mouth and I suspect I'd be fine without
| ads. There are so many negative externalities that it's
| actually ridiculous.
| yunohn wrote:
| And pray tell how the chain of word of mouth started for that
| product?
| barnabee wrote:
| People who work there.
|
| People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a
| market.
|
| Reading (unpaid) reviews.
|
| There are vastly many ways that unbiased, factual
| information about a new product can be disseminated to
| those who are looking for it that are not advertising.
| yunohn wrote:
| > People who work there.
|
| They're paid to work on and like the product.
|
| > People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a
| market.
|
| The salespeople at the shop and market are paid to like
| and sell the product.
|
| Even getting your product into a store shelf is a
| marketing activity, and chain stores charge a lot of
| money for the privilege.
|
| > Reading (unpaid) reviews.
|
| This can be a hobby, but most people need to make money
| from the work they do. This is why this area is covered
| by companies that employ and pay people to use and review
| products.
|
| Also, this is recursive - where did this unpaid reviewer
| hear about the product?
|
| > unbiased, factual information
|
| What is an unbiased fact? Is vim better or emacs? How do
| you decide between the two? First you "hear" about them,
| and hopefully they didn't "bias" you on way or another,
| and then because they're (luckily) free, you can try both
| and decide for yourself what the "facts" are. But what
| about vscode and jetbrains and etc? They're backed by
| corporations, and have marketing behind them, but they're
| great products too!
|
| You see where this is going once you generalize across
| industries? People pay for ads so that they can tell
| people what they think is an unbiased fact about their
| product. If they're lucky, they also get word of mouth.
| But in a massively populated world with millions of
| products, this obviously creates a market for said "word
| of mouth". And in turn, attracts bad actors, who lie
| about their product or manipulate you for politics etc.
| Some cases are clear cut, but others are not. It's up to
| the viewer to decide at the end of the day.
| jopsen wrote:
| And hope chain didn't start from lie :)
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Word of mouth is an amplification mechanism that also
| filters. It seems silly to imagine a product spreading by
| word of mouth because of how bad today's products often
| are. Rather than having to earn spread through appeal,
| companies can pay money to shortcut the process. In an
| advertising-less world word of mouth would carry farther
| because the products would adapt to the filter to be
| better. It would probably take awareness plenty far to
| enable a business owner to tell you, 4-6 hops away, about
| his/her innovative new vacuum or whatever.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Advertising is a broad thing, which may include:
|
| - Job offers
|
| - Jobseeking
|
| - Dating
|
| - Public service announcements
|
| - Word-of-mouth
|
| - Sponsoring
|
| - Political campaigns
|
| - Fundraisers
|
| - Endorsements
|
| - Recommendations
|
| And many others
|
| If you ban all forms of advertising, society will grind to a
| halt, even before considering free speech. How can a business be
| successful if no one knows that it exists? Advertising connects
| people who need something to people who provide it. It absolutely
| essential to society and in a sense, it predates humans, if we
| consider mating as a form of advertising, like peacocks using
| their tails as some kind of a biological billboard.
|
| I understand what the author means, he is annoyed by ad breaks,
| banners, and tracking, we all are, and he would like to see less
| of them, we all do, except whoever makes money over these banners
| that is.
|
| The author suggests banning paid-for advertisement. But how far
| will it go? For example, you want to print flyers to promote your
| business. Is it illegal for the print shop to print your flyers,
| as they are making money on advertising. Classified ads will
| become illegal too, forget about craigslist and the likes.
|
| It kinds of remind me of some "abolitionist" laws on prostitution
| that some countries have. Prostitution is legal, based on the
| idea that people own their bodies and people have the right to
| have sex, but everything surrounding prostitution is not,
| including advertising and pimping. The definition for pimping can
| go far, for example renting a room to a prostitute can be
| considered pimping. The idea is essentially to make prostitution
| illegal without writing it explicitly. A blanket ban on
| advertising will do that, but for all businesses.
|
| As always, for every complex problem there is a solution which is
| clear, simple and wrong.
| nojs wrote:
| Funny that it literally begins with "Follow @index@simone.org via
| your Fediverse account (like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Flipboard,
| Wordpress, Writefreely, Threads, or BlueSky.)"
|
| Or is that just helpfully letting us know of something related
| that we might want ;)
| ohdearsadface wrote:
| how sad, pointing at hypocrisy met with downvote button :)
| gcp123 wrote:
| As someone who's worked in marketing for 15 years - across big
| agencies in New York and running growth for startups - there's an
| uncomfortable truth to this piece. The industry has quietly
| become something darker than when I joined.
|
| Modern advertising doesn't just sell products, it sells our own
| attention back to us at a premium. What started as "connecting
| products to people who need them" has warped into engineering
| digital environments that hack our baseline neurological
| responses.
|
| The most disturbing part is that most people inside the machine
| know it. I've sat in rooms where we've explicitly designed
| systems to maximize "time on site" by exploiting cognitive
| vulnerabilities. The language we use internally is more clinical
| than predatory, which makes it easy to avoid moral questions.
|
| What's wild is how this piece frames advertising as a relatively
| recent phenomenon. It's right - for 99% of human history, we made
| purchasing decisions based on community knowledge and direct
| information, not carefully engineered psychological triggers that
| follow us around.
|
| Sure, banning all advertising sounds extreme, but it's worth
| asking: what would we actually lose? Product information would
| still exist. Reviews would still exist. Word-of-mouth would still
| exist. We'd just lose the sophisticated machinery designed to
| bypass our rational decision-making.
|
| The "free speech" counter-argument has always struck me as
| disingenuous. Nobody believes they have a constitutional right to
| interrupt your dinner with a telemarketing call.
| jayd16 wrote:
| The issue isn't that advertising is speech. The problem is it's
| easy to label speech as something else.
| grishka wrote:
| You can already block 99% of ads on devices you own. I haven't
| seen an internet ad in ages. I forget that websites have them.
|
| That said, I don't think it's appropriate to outlaw _all_
| advertising. It should still be allowed in places where you 'd be
| open to it anyway: in stores and other places where you spend
| money anyway, and in specialized publications that exist for
| people who intentionally want to be advertised to.
|
| However, for when you're buying something, upselling (any
| questions by the seller that may result in you buying something
| you didn't intend to buy originally) should be illegal. It feels
| very insulting to me.
| gcp123 wrote:
| I can't stop thinking about this article. I spent a long time in
| ad tech before switching to broader systems engineering. The
| author captures something I've struggled to articulate to friends
| and family about why I left the industry.
|
| The part that really struck me was framing advertising and
| propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with
| different masters. Having built targeting systems myself, this
| rings painfully true. The mechanical difference between getting
| someone to buy sneakers versus vote for a candidate is
| surprisingly small.
|
| What's frustrating is how the tech community keeps treating the
| symptoms while ignoring the disease. We debate content moderation
| policies and algorithmic transparency, but rarely question the
| underlying attention marketplace that makes manipulation
| profitable in the first place.
|
| The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that
| today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic. We've
| built something that converts human attention into money with
| increasingly terrifying efficiency, but we're all trapped in a
| prisoner's dilemma where nobody can unilaterally disarm.
|
| Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a world
| without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce would
| still happen. Information would still flow. We'd just be freed
| from the increasingly sophisticated machinery designed to
| override our decision-making.
|
| Is this proposal radical? Absolutely. But sometimes the Overton
| window needs a sledgehammer.
|
| P.S. If you are curious about the relationship between Sigmund
| Freud, propaganda, and the origins of the ad industry, check out
| the documentary "Century of the Self".
| LunaSea wrote:
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce
| would still happen.
|
| But newspapers, TV and Youtube would die out.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Very little of _value_ would be lost.
| immibis wrote:
| Is that such a bad thing? Are they really providing that much
| value?
|
| The remaining YouTube channels would be concentrated around
| the ones that are of higher quality, rather than easy slop
| produced to push ads. Nobody would try to clone someone
| else's channel for money. They would only be produced by
| people who were passionate about that topic. There would be
| fewer channels by passionate people, but the percentage would
| be much higher, so it's not necessarily a worse situation
| overall.
|
| TV has always cost money - you pay for satellite or cable,
| and the free-to-air programming available to you is overtly
| subsidized by your government - they shouldn't need to
| double-dip by showing ads.
|
| We used to pay for newspaper subscriptions too. A lot of
| newspapers are trying to go back to that, but it's a market
| for lemons. Maybe if advertising was banned, we'd each
| subscribe to one or two online newspapers and discover which
| ones are decent and which ones are crap. Remember, it's
| harder to make someone who was paying $0.00 pay $0.01, than
| to make someone who was paying $10 pay $20. Would the market
| be more efficient at price discovery if there was no $0.00 at
| all?
| worik wrote:
| > Maybe if advertising was banned, we'd each subscribe to
| one or two online newspapers and discover which ones are
| decent and which ones are crap.
|
| I keep hoping that decent aggregators will emerge - or I
| will find the ones that exist.
|
| I am happy to pay for news, but I cannot afford to pay for
| all the ones I want, and I cannot afford the time to read
| all I want. I would like to pay good aggregators....
| vitus wrote:
| > The remaining YouTube channels would be concentrated
| around the ones that are of higher quality, rather than
| easy slop produced to push ads. Nobody would try to clone
| someone else's channel for money. They would only be
| produced by people who were passionate about that topic.
| There would be fewer channels by passionate people, but the
| percentage would be much higher, so it's not necessarily a
| worse situation overall.
|
| I have some questions about your vision.
|
| - How many content creators would no longer be able to make
| passion videos as their full-time job because they're no
| longer getting revenue-sharing from YouTube?
|
| - Okay, some content creators also have Patreon etc. What's
| the incentive to post these videos publicly for free, as
| opposed to hoarding them behind their Patreon paywall?
|
| - What's the incentive for YouTube to continue existing as
| a free-to-watch service? Or even at all? Take away the ad
| money, and I can't imagine that the remaining subscription
| revenue comes anywhere close to paying for the
| infrastructure.
| azemetre wrote:
| Who says we have to keep using YouTube for this vision?
| There's no reason why the government can't nationalize
| these services if they are so vital for a variety of
| commerce.
|
| Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow
| users the ability to bring in their own advertising.
| vitus wrote:
| I'm not saying that we have to keep using YouTube for
| this vision, but GP stated that there would be fewer
| YouTube channels (but not none!). In that scenario, what
| incentives are there to provide a video-sharing platform
| that is a net negative to operate?
|
| I don't think that nationalizing such a service makes
| much sense either. What motivation does a government have
| to operate a service for global benefit (as opposed to
| just its citizens)? Surely we shouldn't want a US
| YouTube, a French YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.
|
| > Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow
| users the ability to bring in their own advertising.
|
| Doesn't that run counter to the premise of banning
| advertising in the first place?
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > Surely we shouldn't want a US YouTube, a French
| YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.
|
| Why not? What's so special about having all content on
| the same website? You can generally only consume videos
| in your own language or others you can understand.
| There's generally only a handful of countries that speak
| a certain language, and aggregators would likely appear.
|
| If each country had their own localised platform, local
| culture would have a much greater chance to flourish.
|
| I know plenty of teenagers who know more about US
| politics than their own country's, who barely know local
| artists, who know certain expressions in English but have
| no resources to convey a similar message in their native
| languages.
|
| I wouldn't mind going back to a world a little more
| diverse, a little less homogeneous.
| vitus wrote:
| Going further: do you want a US internet, a French
| internet, Japanese internet, etc? I would prefer to avoid
| fragmentation of the ecosystem, since it complicates
| discovery of content, reduces potential reach, limits
| cross-pollination of ideas, etc.
|
| Suppose that I really want to consume content from
| certain UK creators, but the UK YouTube-equivalent is
| region-locked, as much of BBC is today. That's a net loss
| compared to the status quo.
|
| > There's generally only a handful of countries that
| speak a certain language
|
| And there are plenty of people who speak languages other
| than their native one. English literacy / fluency is a de
| facto standard in tech, whether we like it or not. It's
| not a matter of suppressing other cultures, but rather
| providing a common language for discourse.
|
| > and aggregators would likely appear.
|
| I'm not so convinced. If these are services provided by
| governments for their residents, they're especially easy
| to region-lock.
|
| > If each country had their own localised platform, local
| culture would have a much greater chance to flourish.
|
| > I know plenty of teenagers who know more about US
| politics than their own country's, who barely know local
| artists, who know certain expressions in English but have
| no resources to convey a similar message in their native
| languages.
|
| I sympathize with this concern, but I don't think that
| this approach is the answer.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > Going further: do you want a US internet, a French
| internet, Japanese internet, etc?
|
| The Internet was conceived as a network of independent
| nodes, all interconnected. What I said looks a lot more
| like what the Internet was intended to be than YouTube
| does.
|
| > I would prefer to avoid fragmentation of the ecosystem,
| since it complicates discovery of content, reduces
| potential reach, limits cross-pollination of ideas, etc.
|
| Aggregators, RSS feeds or similar, word of mouth, all
| those things help with relevant discovery. The YouTube
| recommendations algorithm seems to do less so.
|
| > Suppose that I really want to consume content from
| certain UK creators, but the UK YouTube-equivalent is
| region-locked, as much of BBC is today. That's a net loss
| compared to the status quo.
|
| Perhaps. You might also ask yourself why they are region-
| locked. I believe it will come down to advertisement, at
| least to a non-negligible amount.
|
| In any case, I'm not saying multi-language or multi-
| country websites and services would be prohibited from
| existing, only that the likes of YouTube would probably
| not be as profitable and may cease to exist.
|
| > And there are plenty of people who speak languages
| other than their native one. English literacy / fluency
| is a de facto standard in tech, whether we like it or
| not.
|
| It is. And within a certain circle it's less of a
| problem, though sometimes it can also become one.
|
| > It's not a matter of suppressing other cultures, but
| rather providing a common language for discourse.
|
| I assume you're a native English speaker, most likely
| from the USA. What you call "a common language for
| discourse" is unfortunately exactly the suppression of
| other cultures. There's no way to have that common
| language without the language, the ideas and the very
| ways of thinking approaching more the one of the language
| that's becoming common.
|
| The very premise of TFA shows that. Propaganda and
| advertisement are one and the same in some languages. And
| that has profound implications in how the speakers of
| those languages interpret the world in what pertains to
| these concepts. By "providing a common language" where
| there is an intrinsic difference between the words, that
| world view, the very premises of those other cultures are
| changed and moulded to be more similar to those of the
| dominant language.
|
| The very existence of said common language makes the
| world less interesting, it slowly erases and erodes
| individualities of cultures and ultimately we as a
| species are poorer for it.
| vitus wrote:
| > The Internet was conceived as a network of independent
| nodes, all interconnected. What I said looks a lot more
| like what the Internet was intended to be than YouTube
| does.
|
| I don't dispute that, and it's not as much of an issue as
| long as they are in fact interconnected nodes, but the
| direction we're heading is that more and more countries
| are exploring China's and North Korea's model where they
| have their own sovereign internet. Russia, Iran, Myanmar
| have all taken concrete steps in the past 2-3 years, and
| plenty of other countries would do more if they had the
| ability to do so.
|
| Like it or not, there is actually a notion of "too big to
| block." Most countries are not willing to block, say, all
| of Cloudflare's IP ranges, or all of Google or YouTube.
|
| > Perhaps. You might also ask yourself why they are
| region-locked. I believe it will come down to
| advertisement, at least to a non-negligible amount.
|
| In my experience, most region locks are based on either
| licensing deals or government regulations. That seems to
| be the case for BBC content:
|
| "Programmes cannot be streamed outside the UK, even on
| holiday. This is because of rights agreements."
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/playback-
| issues...
|
| Sure, some licensing deals are made on the basis of "who
| gets the advertising revenue", but not all of them (or
| probably most, for that matter).
|
| > In any case, I'm not saying multi-language or multi-
| country websites and services would be prohibited from
| existing, only that the likes of YouTube would probably
| not be as profitable and may cease to exist.
|
| Yep, I totally agree. As I said, "Take away the ad money,
| and I can't imagine that the remaining subscription
| revenue comes anywhere close to paying for the
| infrastructure." I'm not asserting that multi-country
| websites would be prohibited, but rather that if you push
| ownership onto governments, they'll prioritize their
| residents over any other users, and I wouldn't be
| surprised if said governments institute region locks
| (e.g. to limit serving costs).
| immibis wrote:
| There was an Internet before advertising. There are still
| sites without advertising. Why?
| charcircuit wrote:
| The vast majority of Patreon contributions come from the
| YouTuber advertising it.
| pseufaux wrote:
| TV and YouTube would definitely suffer. Not sure if that's an
| issue or benefit. But I'm not sure newspapers or journalism
| would be so bad. My expectation would be that people would
| still need/want information from somewhere might begin paying
| to get it.
| LunaSea wrote:
| They already have this choice and don't pick it.
| dcow wrote:
| Choosing "free" in free vs paid is not the same as
| choosing "none" in none vs paid.
| jajko wrote:
| Yeah, some loss, a very visible one. But what we are losing
| now is much bigger, albeit much harder to point finger on and
| quantify. Some inner quality and strength that probably
| doesnt even have a name.
|
| Most people never even thought about ads that way.
|
| For my own little part - firefox and ublock origin since it
| exists, on phone too. To the point of almost physically
| allergic to ads, aby ads, they cause a lasting disgust with
| given brand. I detest being manipulated, and this is not even
| hidden, a very crude and primitive way.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > I detest being manipulated
|
| It's even worse when you can't even be detested because you
| don't realize it is happening.
| chronogram wrote:
| News would still exist and would not be competing with
| engagement driven news because there's no engagement=ad
| views. I wager it would be very helpful to news.
|
| TV would absolutely still exist, given that people pay for it
| and there is a big industry around ad-free streaming services
| already.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Almost no online newspaper survives from subscriptions.
|
| Non public broadcasters are rarely if ever and free.
| Meaning that their business model requires this as revenue
| to survive.
| azemetre wrote:
| If there is such a small ability for the average person
| to make SMB viable without massive subsidies by
| advertisers maybe it's time to argue that there should be
| more public investment and grants given to independent
| journalists that meet a certain criteria.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Government paid press? How long before someone realizes
| they better write inline with current government views.
| Who would a Trump government hire/fire who would a Biden
| government hire/fire.. independent of what?
| wild_egg wrote:
| Many countries have this in various forms and it works
| out fine. Generally illegal to interfere with the press
| and a good way to lose the next election
| thelaxiankey wrote:
| i'd say the success of substack flies directly in the
| face of your claim
| wat10000 wrote:
| They have to compete with ad-funded competition. This
| doesn't tell us about the viability of this approach in a
| world where the ad-funded model isn't viable.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| For news, I feel it's another can of worm altogether.
|
| Right now we've already having oligarchs owning news groups
| and very few independent publications. But getting rid of
| other revenue sources won't help that situation, we'd get
| more Washington Post or New York Times than Buffalo's Fire.
|
| It's a lot easier IMHO to have an independent newsroom if
| the business side can advertise for toilet paper and dating
| sites than if it needs to convince Jeff Bezos of its value
| to him.
|
| And investigation journalism costs a lot while not getting
| valued by many, there's no way we get a set of paid-only-
| by-viewers papers from all relevant spectrums covering most
| of the news happening every day.
| inopinatus wrote:
| only the shit ones
| cauch wrote:
| Advertisement get the source money from the viewers, it does
| not create any money in itself. So, if advertisement is
| banned, people will have more money, and this money can be
| used to finance what they want to consume.
|
| This is something that I still struggle to wrap my head
| around: if a company is paying X$ for advertisement, it means
| that people subjected to this advertisement will give Y$ to
| this company that they would not have paid otherwise, Y
| higher than X, otherwise there is no reason for this company
| to pay for advertisement. Yet everyone is saying "yeah,
| advertisement, I don't care, I just ignore it". Surely it
| cannot be true.
| parkaboy wrote:
| Even if it seems like everyone is saying this, it's just
| statistically not true / in the aggregate, at least in the
| context of direct online ads. Otherwise the direct ad
| industry would be totally dead (ad performance is measured
| to death by companies).
|
| Conversion (getting someone to purchase) at scale with ads
| is not so simple as person sees ad, clicks, and buys. There
| are many steps along the funnel and sometimes ads can be
| used in concert with other channels (influencer content,
| sponsored news articles, etc). Within direct ads you
| typically have multiple steps depending on how cold or warm
| (e.g. have they seen or interacted with your content
| previously) the lead is when viewing the ad and you tailor
| the ad content accordingly to try to keep pushing the
| person down the funnel.
|
| Generally if you know your customer persona well and have
| good so-called product-market-fit, then (1) you will be
| able to build a funnel that works at scale. So then (2) the
| question is does the cost to convert a customer / CAC fit
| within the profit margin, which is much more difficult to
| unpack.
|
| However, it's worth keeping in mind that digital ad costs
| are essentially invented by the ad platform. There is a
| market-type of force. If digital ads become less effective
| and the CAC goes too high across an industry/sector, the
| platform may be forced to reduce the cost to deliver ads if
| the channel just doesn't make enough financial sense for
| enough businesses.
|
| All this is to say, the system does/can work. Tends to work
| better for large established companies or startups with
| lots of funding. In general, not a suggested approach as a
| first channel for a small startup/small business. Building
| up effective funnels is incredibly expensive and takes a
| lot of time in my depressing personal experience.
| cauch wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| Would you say that it indeed means that if ads are
| banned, the money to support news, tv, youtube, ... will
| still be there? I would think that in fact, there would
| be even more money for news, tv, youtube, ... as the ad
| company will not take their cut of the money.
|
| Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it, ad may also work in
| directing expenses that would have been done anyway. For
| example, if I have 10 companies A, B, C, D, ... all
| selling the same kind of product, then it is possible
| that 1000 persons that want that kind of product will all
| spend 100PS, shared between the 10 companies. So, company
| A will receive 10000PS. But if company A does some
| advertisement for a cost of 5000PS, maybe people will
| still spend the same amount, but for their brand in
| majority, so the 1000 persons will still spend the same
| 100PS, but company A will receive 20000PS because some
| people will buy A instead of B, C, D, ...
| simgt wrote:
| > 1000 persons that want that kind of product
|
| I'd say advertising is in good portion what creates the
| "want" instead of a "need". If we were to rebalance the
| amount of purchases driven by needs instead of wants,
| we'd overall reduce the total amount of purchases. Each
| of them would also not have the extra cost of advertising
| included in their price.
| rescripting wrote:
| We'd also benefit from not having unnecessary "wants"
| generated within us, which so often comes at the cost of
| our self esteem. So many ads prey on your fear of being
| too ugly, too lonely, too poor, and they amplify that
| fear then stick a car on screen masquerading as the
| solution to these manufactured problems.
| jzb wrote:
| "This is something that I still struggle to wrap my head
| around: if a company is paying X$ for advertisement, it
| means that people subjected to this advertisement will give
| Y$ to this company that they would not have paid otherwise"
|
| You seem to be assuming that, in the absence of
| advertising, the company will sell as much as it did before
| -- just with lower overhead costs -- rather than
| advertising driving more sales and possibly _lowering_
| costs because the company has more customers. For some
| items / things this may be true-ish. I'm going to buy
| paper towels because I need paper towels, and advertising
| has little influence on that -- except, maybe, which brand
| I buy. But I'm going to spill things, and my cats are going
| to keep barfing on the floor from time to time, so I'm
| going to need paper towels regardless. And I'm not going to
| buy a bunch of extra ones just because the ads are so good.
|
| Don't get me started on soda advertising and such because
| the amount of money those companies spend on ads is mind-
| boggling and I don't think it moves the needle very much
| when it comes to Coke vs. Pepsi...
|
| But, would I go see a movie without ads to promote it?
| Would I buy that t-shirt with a funny design if I didn't
| see it on a web site? Sign up for a SaaS offering if I
| don't see an ad for it somewhere?
|
| If a SaaS lands 20% more customers because ads (and other
| forms of marketing) that's not necessarily going to mean I
| pay more for the SaaS because ads. It may very well mean
| that the prices stay lower because many of their costs are
| fixed and if they have 20% more paying customers, they can
| charge less to be competitive. If a publication has more
| subscribers because it advertises, it may not have to raise
| rates to stay / be profitable.
|
| In some cases you may be correct -- landing customers via
| ads equals X% of my costs, so my prices reflect that. But
| it's not necessarily true.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Parent's point about ad being close to propaganda is key:
| people getting advertised at are often not the ones with
| the money.
|
| For newspapers for instance, Exxon or Shell could be paying
| a lot more to have their brand painted in favorable light
| than the amount the newspaper readership could afford to
| pay in aggregate.
|
| The same way Coca Cola's budget for advertising greenness
| is not matched by how many more sales they're expecting to
| make from these ads in any specific medium, but how much
| the company's bottling policy has to lose if public opinion
| changed too much. That's basically lobbying money.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I don't know. I would GLADLY pay for ad-free youtube if the
| price were set at what they'd otherwise make on ads for me.
| In which case, that'd be about $3.50/month.
|
| Instead they want to price-gouge me for 5x that so... no
| thanks. I'll just use my ad blocker.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| I would gladly pay for ad-free youtube if they weren't
| double dipping by tracking me (which is now more valuable
| because you have my cc#)
| hanspeter wrote:
| Could you explain how you arrived at the $3.50/month
| figure?
|
| The model I understand you're suggesting is individual
| pricing based on usage and value as an ad target. A lot
| more complex and opaque than a straightforward fixed fee
| for all users.
|
| Also, it's worth noting that YouTube Premium includes
| YouTube Music, which serves as your Spotify replacement.
| You might not need this, but the subscription fee covers
| more than just the lost ad revenue on YouTube.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I calculated this with some degree of rigor as a VERY
| conservative estimate of their ad revenue from me. THAT
| came out to more like $3 and I just adjusted for
| inflation this time around.
|
| I don't really recall the details of that calculation
| unfortunately. But it would have been based on cost per
| ad view (no clicks) times the number I expect to be shown
| in a month.
|
| The model I'm suggesting would be more like I load
| YouTube up with $10 and slowly burn through it as I view
| videos instead of being shown ads. The cost per view
| could actually be just as or even more transparent.
| Perhaps videos are tagged with the cost to view, which
| could open up a whole new world of economy among creators
| to gatekeep with higher fees themselves if they want to
| value their videos at more than the default. Being
| transparent on pricing this way is literally using the
| exact same infrastructure they already use to price ads,
| just letting me pay the cost instead of the advertisers.
| jzb wrote:
| "But newspapers, TV and Youtube would die out."
|
| The missing part of this sentence is "as they exist now".
| There are other models that exist that could support
| broadcast and publications. There are other models yet to be
| explored or that have floundered because they've been snuffed
| out or avoided because the easiest (for certain values of
| "easy") path to dollars, right now, is advertising.
|
| It is a pipe dream, of course -- and the author of the piece
| doesn't really do the hard work of following through on not
| just how difficult it would be to make advertising illegal,
| but the ramificaitons. While an ad-free world would be
| wonderful, that's a lot of people out of a job real quick-
| like. Deciding what constitutes an "ad" versus content
| marketing or just "hey, this thing exists" would be harder
| than it might seem at first thought.
| theamk wrote:
| Which models are there? The only other ones I know is
| patreon-like, which totally destroy the long tail.
|
| And long-tail ones are the best. There are some great
| videos on youtube which are 10+ years old and do not have
| millions of views. I am sure many of their uploaders
| already forgot about them. I cannot see them existing
| without being supported by "something", and if that's not
| advertisement, than what?
| jzb wrote:
| Are you referring to a model for supporting YouTube
| hosting the videos or for the people who produce the
| videos?
|
| YouTube already has subscriptions. An ad-free YouTube
| could extend that and maybe add lower tiers of
| subscriptions for X hours per month viewing. This would
| be a double-win, if YouTube's were centered around
| catering to users and not maximizing time on site with
| The Algorithm(TM) to ensure people see more ads -- which
| also encourages some of the worst content on YT.
|
| But a big shift like ridding the world of advertising
| would, of course, have tradeoffs. Maybe that would be
| "long tail" videos on YouTube. If you can get rid of ads
| and have to lose those, is it worth it? Conversely, what
| has advertising killed off that we might be able to have
| again if it was gone?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _But newspapers, TV and Youtube would die out._
|
| Good. They're but shells of themselves, eaten through and
| bloated up by cancer of advertising. Even if they were to die
| out, the demand for the value they used to provide will
| remain strong, so these services would reappear in a better
| form.
|
| I thought people in tech/enterpreneurship circles were
| generally fans of "creative disruption"? Well, there's
| nothing more creatively disruptive than rebuilding the
| digital markets around scummy business models.
|
| (Think of all business models - many of them more honest -
| that are suppressed by advertising, because they can't
| compete with "free + ads". Want business innovation? Ban
| "free + ads" and see it happen.)
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| * "the newspapers, tv channels and YouTube content that had
| so little value to society that no one was willing to pay for
| will die out."
|
| Yes.
| hanspeter wrote:
| It's interesting that you leave out Google (and similar
| search engines).
|
| We would lose one of the most useful tools introduced to
| mankind in the last 3 decades.
| nofalsescotsman wrote:
| Treating the symptoms is easier and cheaper. And let's be real,
| the money would rather treat symptoms than the cause.
| Convincing monied interests to stop advertising is not a
| realistic thing. This would have to be done through legislation
| and force. And I agree it should be done.
| gigatree wrote:
| Neither convincing them nor compelling them through law would
| work. I'm surprised the author can't see that as an ad person
| himself. The incentives are too strong; if you outlaw them,
| they'll just be circumnavigated in more nefarious ways.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Law can be very strong but our "representatives" as of now
| aren't very good at representing the will of the people.
|
| The system can work but we vote in horrible people to
| execute it.
| Terr_ wrote:
| It is a tricky and uncomfortable truth that human minds are
| hackable.
|
| On the flip side, we've had many thousands of years of
| adversarial training, so it's not as if protections don't exist
| --at least for a very classical modes of attack.
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| The reality of "mind control" of those perpetually exposed to
| media has been a popular topic throughout the last half
| century at least.
|
| Humans don't have those protections. Although, ego deludes
| oneself to believe they do. Ask anyone if they are
| susceptible to advertising. Maybe 1 in 5 have the humility
| and awareness to state the truth.
| barnabee wrote:
| This is precisely why I try to see as close to zero
| advertising as possible, and also why I will always
| actively avoid buying something when I do see an ad for it
| (if I realise this).
|
| I do not trust my in-built protections, so I'd rather not
| be exposed in the first place.
| timewizard wrote:
| It's a pattern recognition machine dominated by reward
| feedback mechanisms.
|
| It's not hackable so much as it lacks resistance to
| environmental noise.
| relaxing wrote:
| Thousands of years of adversarial training is what made us
| controllable -- stick with the group, and we'll defend
| ourselves against the enemy.
| autoexec wrote:
| There are manipulation techniques we really can't protect
| ourselves against. It's like the optical illusions where even
| when you're fully aware what the trick is, you know the
| horizontal lines on the cafe wall are actually straight, you
| still see it incorrectly. Awareness of our weaknesses isn't
| enough to correct them.
|
| Even when we can use that awareness to notice the times that
| we're being manipulated and try to remind ourselves to reject
| the idea that was forced into our brain surveillance
| capitalism means that advertisers can use the data they have
| to hit us when they know we're most susceptible and our
| defenses will be less effective. They can engineer our
| experiences and environments to make us more susceptible and
| our defenses are less effective. They're spending massive
| amounts of time and money year after year on refining their
| techniques to be more and more effective in general, and more
| effective against you individually. I wouldn't put much faith
| in our ability to immunize ourselves against advertising.
| amelius wrote:
| Read up on psychological warfare techniques. And these have
| been embraced by adtech companies and are being applied to
| children ...
| hliyan wrote:
| This his how I look at it. If a lesser computing device's
| vulnerabilities were exploited to alter its intended
| behaviour, especially for financial gain, it would be
| considered hacking and criminal penalties would apply. Why
| that applies to a mobile phone, and not to a far more
| critical computing device (the human brain) is the question.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| > framing advertising and propaganda as essentially the same
| mechanism...
|
| You'll likely be pleased to hear they use the word "propaganda"
| for advertising in Portuguese, at least in Brazil.
| nico wrote:
| Same in Spanish. Propaganda and publicidad are
| interchangeable
|
| Which makes it actually really hard to talk about political
| propaganda
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > Which makes it actually really hard to talk about
| political propaganda
|
| In Portuguese, I never found it difficult - mostly because,
| as the OP suggests, there is no material difference. If you
| want to talk about political propaganda, either say
| "propaganda" and let the other person deduct from context
| that you mean political propaganda, or explicitly say
| "political propaganda" (propaganda politica).
|
| In some ways, it might even be better as it will require
| you to actually characterise whether you mean political in
| the party-electoral sense, or in the ideological sense,
| etc.
|
| The first time I heard the word "propaganda" in the English
| language, I assumed it was a less used synonymous for
| "advertisement". Despite having lived in an English-
| speaking country for over a decade, I still see them both
| as one and the same.
|
| I sometimes feel like the separation is mostly used as a
| means to purport corporate and commercial advertising as
| legitimate, good and desirable (or at least acceptable)
| whilst keeping the idea of political and ideological
| advertisement as evil.
|
| Both are bad. Both are means to manipulate an individual's
| opinion in favour of the advertiser. Commercially it is so
| I feel compelled to trade a portion of my life and health
| (in the form of money that I earned through work) to them
| in for a good or a service that I may otherwise not have
| thought worth the exchange.
|
| Politically it's the same, only this time instead of my
| money they want my vote or my support for a certain policy
| that might even be against my personal or collective
| interests.
| schoen wrote:
| English speakers often do care about the connotation of
| "propaganda" as something deceptive or manipulative (with
| the paradigmatic example probably being wartime
| propaganda which tries to influence populations,
| supposedly without regard for the truth).
|
| It's true that "propaganda" in the disparaging sense is
| _more_ applied to political and ideological messages, but
| you can sometimes see it used about commercial messages
| when the speaker believes that those messages are
| especially manipulative, for example when the speaker
| believes an industry is bad but is wrongfully portraying
| itself as good by covering up harms that it causes. You
| might hear this more in connection with an "industry"
| ("tobacco industry propaganda" or "oil industry
| propaganda"), but I've occasionally heard it in
| connection with individual companies. But the negative
| connotation is pretty strong, so some listeners might be
| uncomfortable if they don't share the speaker's views of
| the propaganda author.
|
| One can also say that a book is propaganda in the sense
| that the book is dishonest and manipulative advocacy,
| where the author isn't showing respect for the readers.
|
| I wanted to write something about the question of how
| American rhetoric (and courts) see the relative value, or
| relative harmfulness, of commercial versus political
| advertising. But this turned into a complicated
| discussion that I'm not sure I can do a good job of, so
| I'm going to hold off on that for now.
| exe34 wrote:
| I find it hard to imagine. I hate advertising as much as the
| next guy - I intentionally try to associate negative thoughts
| with any adverts that interrupt a video I'm watching (I nearly
| ordered hellofresh after getting a voucher, but they've
| interrupted my YouTube experience too many times in the past).
|
| But how do you separate advertising from product
| recommendations? Would it only apply if the person doing the
| recommending is getting paid for it?
| sharemywin wrote:
| does youtube exist without advertisers?
| exe34 wrote:
| peer to peer, yes.
| thunky wrote:
| Yes it's called YouTube Premium and its not free but also
| not expensive. It's possible that the cost would go up
| without ad revenue from "free" YouTube.
| mathgeek wrote:
| > I nearly ordered hellofresh after getting a voucher, but
| they've interrupted my YouTube experience too many times in
| the past
|
| I totally relate to the "I'm OK with certain types of
| advertising" angle here.
| barnabee wrote:
| If they are paid and the consumer didn't ask to see it,
| either because it's inserted into the web page / video stream
| / whatever they are actually trying to consume, OR because
| because the whole thing has a paid bias or ulterior motive.
| thimkerbell wrote:
| It's been tried, in sci fi. The result is Influencers.
| Benjammer wrote:
| If the influencer is actually giving good advice because it's
| illegal to pay them to promote a product, is that such a bad
| thing? What sci fi are you talking about?
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| 1. this is not new. radio, print, theater... every thing was
| monetizing attention to great success.
|
| 2. all advertising venues (radio, web, print, outdoors) all
| make boatloads of money during political campaigns AND
| government "awareness" campaigns (which are all disguised
| political campaigns with tax money). most radios stations yet
| around, live exclusively of this revenue.
|
| so, the system was built on the two premises you wrongly
| consider side effects or unintended consequences. making it
| illegal is the only alternative. everything else is just
| ignoring the real cause: it was for exactly that.
| kragen wrote:
| It's not a well-enough-thought-out proposal to call "radical";
| it assumes that making advertising illegal would make
| advertising go away and that there would be no drawbacks to
| this. Even if we all agree that it's bad for people to say
| things they're paid to say instead of what they really believe,
| there are many possible approaches to writing specific laws to
| diminish that practice. Those approaches represent different
| tradeoffs. You can't say anything nontrivial about the whole
| broad set of possible policy proposals.
|
| To me it sounds a lot like "What if we made drugs illegal?"
| cogman10 wrote:
| > it assumes that making advertising illegal would make
| advertising go away
|
| It would? I don't understand why you and others see this as a
| hard law to craft or enforce (probably not constitutional in
| the US).
|
| The very nature of advertising is it's meant to be seen by as
| many people as possible. That makes enforcement fairly easy.
| We already have laws on the books where paid
| advertising/sponsorship must be clear to the viewer. That's
| why google search results and others are peppered with "this
| is an ad".
|
| > To me it sounds a lot like "What if we made drugs illegal?"
|
| Except drugs/alcohol can be consumed in secret and are highly
| sought after. The dynamic is completely different. Nobody
| really wants to see ads and there's enough "that's illegal"
| people that'd really nerf the ability of ads to get away with
| it.
|
| There's not going to be ad speakeasies.
| 34679 wrote:
| I thought drug laws were a fine example, but let's look at
| another. It's illegal to bribe politicians. Does that mean
| there is no grift in Washington?
| cogman10 wrote:
| That has less to do with it being hard to craft bribery
| laws and more to do with the fact that the current
| bribery laws are entirely ineffectual. It's absolutely
| something that could be fixed, but certainly not
| something almost any politician would want to fix.
|
| I will grant that companies would lobby hard against an
| anti-advertising bill (which means it'll likely never
| pass). That doesn't mean you couldn't make one that's
| pretty effective.
|
| But, again, the nature of advertising makes it quite easy
| to outlaw. Unlike bribery, where a congress person can
| shove gold bars into their suit jackets in secret,
| advertising has to be seen by a lot of people to be
| effective. Making it something that has to be done in
| secret will immediately make it harder to do. The best
| you'll likely see is preferential placement of goods in
| stores or maybe some branding in a TV show.
| kragen wrote:
| There has probably never been a human society in history
| or prehistory without bribery, and no possible set of
| bribery laws could conceivably create one. This is a
| property of human nature, not the current set of laws in
| one country.
|
| I think the same is probably almost true of advertising,
| though maybe societies without money such as Tawantinsuyu
| are an exception. But I don't think you can have
| merchants without advertising, because, like fraud,
| advertising is so profitable for merchants that they will
| do some of it despite whatever laws you have.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I agree. I also think this is a false dilemma.
|
| Just because some corruption always will exist, doesn't
| mean that there aren't societies which have enforced laws
| that are more or less effective.
|
| This binary thinking doesn't need to happen in a policy
| discussion. We don't need a perfect set of laws or rules
| to make things better. We don't avoid having a law just
| because someone will violate it. For example, a speed
| limit is still valid to have even though most people will
| break it, some egregiously so. DUIs laws are useful even
| though people still drink and drive.
|
| It just so happens that with advertising we can be
| particularly effective at curbing the worst offenders.
| That's because advertising is most effective when it's
| seen by the largest number of people. I don't really care
| if a company tries to skirt an anti-ad law by paying an
| influencer millions to wear their product, so long I'm
| not forced to watch 20 minutes of ads in a 20 minute
| video. An anti-ad law would force advertisers to be
| subversive which is, frankly, fine by me. Subversive ads
| simply can't be intrusive.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| You argument sounds a bit like "crime exists despite laws
| against them also existing, therefore we should not have
| such laws".
|
| What you seem to be missing is that, in the end, it's all
| about risks vs. potential gains.
|
| As it stands, advertising is relatively cheap and the
| only risk is to lose all the money spent on it.
|
| Once it's made illegal, that formula changes massively
| since now there's a much bigger risk in the form of
| whatever the law determines - fines, perhaps losing a
| professional license or the right to work on a certain
| field, or to found and/or direct a company, perhaps even
| jail time!
|
| You're right, it will probably still exist in some ways
| in some contexts. I bet it wouldn't be nearly as
| pervasive as it is today though, and that's a win. And if
| it's not enough, up the stakes.
| kragen wrote:
| I wasn't saying we shouldn't have such laws. I was saying
| that we should consider the possible enactment of such
| laws in the light of the knowledge that people will try
| to circumvent them and will sometimes succeed, rather
| than assuming that, if advertising is prohibited, there
| will be no advertising. You seem to agree with this,
| which means you disagree with the original article, which
| does make that assumption.
|
| Separately, I was saying that we can't usefully debate
| the pros and cons of such a vague proposal. You can
| postulate that some sort of vaguely defined prohibition
| would have no drawbacks, but any concrete policy proposal
| will in fact have drawbacks, and in some cases those will
| outweigh their advantages.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Ok, in this case we do seem to be in broad agreement. I'm
| unclear of the value of your ideas though.
|
| > I was saying that we should consider the possible
| enactment of such laws in the light of the knowledge that
| people will try to circumvent them and will sometimes
| succeed
|
| That should always be the case when discussing any laws.
| If you don't consider that people will try to circumvent
| them, there is no point in considering punishment for
| when they do, and ultimately there is no point to the
| law.
|
| > rather than assuming that, if advertising is
| prohibited, there will be no advertising.
|
| As above, I would expect no one to make such assumptions.
|
| > Separately, I was saying that we can't usefully debate
| the pros and cons of such a vague proposal.
|
| I don't see why not. I suspect most proposals and ideas
| start vague, and by discussing their pros and cons and
| further refining them, we get to more concrete, more
| actionable ones.
|
| > but any concrete policy proposal will in fact have
| drawbacks, and in some cases those will outweigh their
| advantages.
|
| This is a truism, I'm not sure what value it adds to the
| discussion.
| xigoi wrote:
| Murder is illegal, but still happens. Therefore, by your
| logic, we should legalize murder.
| kragen wrote:
| No, but when discussing laws against murder, we should
| not assume that they would eliminate murder. This article
| does assume that laws against advertising would eliminate
| advertising.
| kragen wrote:
| Well, I agree that for the most part consumers try to
| minimize their exposure to advertising, but not always.
| Some extreme examples of commercial advertising that was or
| is highly sought after by its target audience include eBay
| listings, Craigslist posts, the Yellow Pages, classified
| ads, the Sears catalog, job offer postings, the McMaster-
| Carr catalog, Computer Shopper before the internet was
| widely accessible, and "product reviews" by reviewers who
| got the product for free. So it seems likely that there
| would, in fact, be "ad speakeasies".
|
| But let's consider the other side of this:
|
| > _I don 't understand why you and others see this as a
| hard law to [...] enforce_
|
| Suppose we consider the narrowest sort of thing we'd get
| the most benefit out of prohibiting, like memecoin pump-
| and-dump scams, which are wildly profitable for the
| promoters but provide no benefit at all to the buyers, so
| nobody goes looking for. We can get a preview of what that
| prohibition would look like by looking at the current state
| of affairs, because _those are already illegal_.
|
| And what we see are fake Elon Musk live streams with
| deepfaked mouth movements, fake Elon Musk Twitter accounts
| that reply to his followers, prominent influencers like
| Javier Milei for no apparent reason touting memecoins they
| claim to have no stake in themselves, prominent influencers
| like Donald Trump touting memecoins they openly have stakes
| in, etc. I haven't heard about any memecoins making
| ostensibly unpaid product placement appearances in novels
| or Hollywood movies (probably crime thrillers) but it
| wouldn't surprise me.
|
| How about sports stars? Today it's assumed that if a
| sportsball player is wearing a corporate logo, it's because
| the company is paying him to wear it. Suppose this were
| prohibited; players would have to remove or cover up the
| Nike logos on their shoes. Probably fans would still want
| to know which brand of shoes they were wearing, wouldn't
| they? Sports journalists would publish investigative
| journalism showing that one or another player wore Nike
| Airs, drank Gatorade, or used Titleist golf balls, and the
| fans would lap it up. How could you prove Titleist didn't
| give the players any consideration in return?
|
| A lot of YouTubers now accept donations of arbitrary size
| from pseudonymous donors, often via Patreon. In this brave
| new world they would obviously be prohibited from listing
| the donors' pseudonyms, but what if Apple were to
| pseudonymously donate large amounts to YouTubers who
| reviewed Apple products favorably? The donees wouldn't know
| their income stream depended on Apple, but viewers would
| still prefer to watch the better-funded channels who used
| better cameras, paid professional video editors, used more
| informative test equipment, and had professional audio dubs
| into their native language. Which would, apparently quite
| organically, be the ones that most strongly favored Apple.
| Would you prohibit pseudonymous donations to influencers?
|
| Commercial advertising is in fact prohibited at Burning
| Man, which is more or less viable because commerce is
| prohibited there. You have to cover up the logos on your
| rental trucks, though nobody is imprisoned or fined for
| violating this, and it isn't enforced to the extent of
| concealing hood ornaments and sneaker logos. But one year
| there was a huge advertising scandal, where one of the
| biggest art projects that year, Uchronia ("the Belgian
| Waffle") was revealed after the fact to be a promotional
| construction for a Belgian company that builds such
| structures commercially. (I'm sure there have been many
| such controversies more recently, but I haven't been able
| to attend for several years, so I don't know about them.)
|
| Let's consider a negative-space case as well: Yelp
| notoriously removed negative reviews from businesses'
| listings if they signed up for its service. We can imagine
| arbitrarily subtle ways of achieving such effects, such as
| YouTube suggesting less often that users watch a certain
| video if it criticizes Google or a YouTube supporter (such
| as the US government) or if it speaks favorably of a
| competing service. How do you prohibit that kind of
| advertising in an enforceable way? Do you prohibit Yelp
| from removing reviews from the site?
|
| Hopefully this clarifies some of the potential difficulties
| with enforcing a ban on advertising, even to people who
| don't want to be advertised to.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Any law would need enforcement but also a mechanism to
| punish not only the creator of the ad but the distributor
| as well.
|
| It isn't that we couldn't get rid of memecoin ads, but
| rather that twitter simply doesn't have almost any
| incentive to crack down on and prevent these sorts of
| ads. Attach a fine with some grace period and I can
| guarantee you'll end up with twitter looking into ways to
| block spammers to avoid being penalized.
|
| I also don't personally mind shill reviewers mainly
| because they are often exposed anyways and become easy to
| ignore. Doesn't mean you couldn't enforce an ad ban
| still, but it might only catch the bigger names.
|
| I'd also posit, though, that ad mediums would be far more
| effective. For example, banning commercials in videos
| would be and easy enough law to craft and enforce that
| would make video sites a lot more pleasant to visit.
|
| A ban wouldn't need to be perfect to be very effective at
| making things better.
| barnabee wrote:
| > Some extreme examples of commercial advertising that
| was or is highly sought after by its target audience
| include eBay listings, Craigslist posts, the Yellow
| Pages, classified ads, the Sears catalog, job offer
| postings, the McMaster-Carr catalog,
|
| Listings that consumers actively seek are quite different
| from messages and content that companies try to place in
| front of people who haven't asked for them.
|
| It would seem both easy and reasonable to craft a law
| that bans advertising without banning listings of
| products and companies, product search engines, etc.
|
| > How do you prohibit that kind of advertising in an
| enforceable way?
|
| This seems similar to suggesting we shouldn't ban e.g.
| price fixing or insider trading because they can be hard
| to detect and enforce.
|
| That's a fallacy. Most companies do not want to break the
| rules and risk enforcement (especially if the penalties
| are high), and a significant reduction and increase in
| subtlety of advertising would still be valuable.
| kragen wrote:
| > _It would seem both easy and reasonable to craft a law
| that bans advertising without banning listings of
| products and companies, product search engines, etc._
|
| I can't help noticing that you haven't ventured to
| attempt it in your comment. Why not?
|
| > _Most companies do not want to break the rules_
|
| This line makes me wonder if you have ever worked for a
| company. This is occasionally true of some rule, but only
| when it's the companies that break the rules that go out
| of business. In environments where the only survivors are
| the ones that break the rules, eventually most of the
| remaining companies do want to break the rules. Since
| enforcement is never perfect, in competitive markets,
| most companies want to break the rules just slightly:
| enough to compete effectively but not enough that
| enforcement makes them unprofitable.
| amelius wrote:
| Current administration already made a bunch of radical
| decisions. What's another one?
| kerkeslager wrote:
| There are no drawbacks to making advertising illegal as long
| as the laws are written conservatively. Point out one.
| Notably "it won't actually prevent all advertising" isn't a
| downside--preventing, say, 80% of advertising is a heck of an
| improvement.
|
| And FFS let's skip past the childish "how will people find
| out about products???" nonsense. You're an adult, use your
| brain. Consumer Reports exists, and in the absence of
| advertising that sort of content would flourish.
| kragen wrote:
| I note that you, too, have failed to make a policy proposal
| that is concrete enough to discuss usefully.
|
| If only 80% of advertising were illegal, probably Consumer
| Reports could continue to exist, although they would be
| exposed to some legal risk of being ruled to be illegal
| advertising, probably prompted by a letter to the Attorney
| General from a company whose products they reviewed poorly
| or neglected to review at all. Stricter regimes like most
| of those being proposed here would make it difficult for CR
| to discover the existence of products to review.
|
| But possibly you are thinking of a different structure of
| regulation than I am, rather than just failing to think
| through its unintended consequences. It's impossible to
| tell if your proposal stays so vague.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > I note that you, too, have failed to make a policy
| proposal that is concrete enough to discuss usefully.
|
| I never complained that you didn't make a policy
| proposal, so you can't say I'm a hypocrite here. In fact,
| I've been pretty clear in other comments that it's
| foolish to hold HN comments to the level of legislation.
|
| > If only 80% of advertising were illegal, probably
| Consumer Reports could continue to exist, although they
| would be exposed to some legal risk of being ruled to be
| illegal advertising, probably prompted by a letter to the
| Attorney General from a company whose products they
| reviewed poorly or neglected to review at all. Stricter
| regimes like most of those being proposed here would make
| it difficult for CR to discover the existence of products
| to review.
|
| Straw man argument extraordinaire. Nobody is calling
| Consumer Reports advertising. On the contrary, I'm saying
| that independent review _isn 't_ advertising.
|
| > But possibly you are thinking of a different structure
| of regulation than I am, rather than just failing to
| think through its unintended consequences. It's
| impossible to tell if your proposal stays so vague.
|
| So maybe ask a question instead of assuming what I'm
| envisioning. Believe it or not, you're not obligated to
| guess what I'm thinking!
|
| Legislation could pretty explicitly allow for independent
| reviewers: that's explicitly the solution I'm proposing
| to the lack of information.
|
| > Stricter regimes like most of those being proposed here
| would make it difficult for CR to discover the existence
| of products to review.
|
| Sorry, which commenter is proposing that independent
| reviewers can't be in contact with companies whose
| products they review?
|
| In my thinking, companies would be explicitly allowed to
| submit their products for review, although I think I'd
| want the reviewers to still pay for the products (i.e.
| not receive them for free or at a discount).
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| > imagine a world without advertising
|
| I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more
| realistic and believable.
|
| It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you
| define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through
| the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an
| unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be
| selectively enforced against political enemies.
|
| And in all cases, you are self-imposing a restriction that will
| give other nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-
| term sovereignty.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > If you define it conservatively, then advertising will
| skirt through the loopholes.
|
| This would result in a better world still, without the
| authoritarian system you describe. No need to get it perfect
| the first try, just start small.
|
| For an example of this in action, drive through any of the US
| states that do not allow billboards.
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Many complex problems can become easier if we can accept
| that the solutions can be malleable and designed to adapt.
| We just don't really apply that to laws for the most part.
| chgs wrote:
| I don't know if it's America or tech people but online
| discourse of legal systems from American tech people
| seems to treat laws as code, something to interpret as
| written rather than the meaning. Loopholes are celebrated
| as being clever and are impossible to patch. This is
| quite alien to most of the world.
| roenxi wrote:
| Although it should be said the economic success of the
| Americans hitherto is also quite foreign to the rest of
| the world; and driven mainly by their legal quirks.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| My understanding is that our success was largely down to
| the Marshal Plan. The claim that it's due to legal quirks
| sounds dubious.
| roenxi wrote:
| That seems rather focused on one policy that was big in
| the 50s. The Marshal Plan was great but that isn't
| something the modern US seems to be capable of - since
| around Vietnam I think was the change. It has been a good
| 50 years where the US just breaks stuff and leaves it
| broken.
|
| Modern prosperity is caused by modern policy. I've seen
| some reasonable theorising that income basically comes
| from how easy it is to do business (thinking especially
| of https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-
| regulation). Which is linked in no small way to the
| cultural factors chgs pointed out - the most vibrant and
| high income industry in the world is also the one that
| sees laws impeding them as a problem that can be
| overcome.
|
| The attitude of doing things that create wealthy even if
| NIMBYs object is an attitude that leads to wealth
| creation. Strange but true. Not the only factor, the
| political strength of the opposition matters a lot too.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| The book _Why Nations Fail_ makes a pretty strong
| argument for the core feature of successful societies to
| be strong institutions with low perceived corruption.
| Sensible laws that are upheld equally are a part of that.
|
| The US in particular benefits from an absurd amount of
| resources (not least of which is land), a perfectly safe
| geographic position, the global language and an immigrant
| culture. Basically able to coattail the British after
| independence, the destruction of much of Eurasia during
| WWII cemented its position as first. And great diplomacy,
| including the Marshal Plan, enabled the US to create an
| international system with many benefits and natural
| synergies with its inherent strengths.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Legalities don't drive profits. If anything the US was
| simply lucky in thr 50s to not be war torn and rebuilding
| it's cities post war.
|
| The only thing special is our geography and history. It's
| really hard to launch an attack unless you're in Canada
| and Mexico. So the US smartly made treaties and
| agreeemtns instead of repeating the bloody history Asia
| and the now EU went through as they constantly battled
| neighbors.
|
| Only Australia has such a similar advantage and instead
| they had to war with nature's deadliest critters trying
| to kill them (they arguably lost).
| roenxi wrote:
| I'm a bit stumped that you don't consider treaties and
| agreements to be legalities.
|
| I mean sure, in the 50s the main driver of prosperity was
| whether a country had avoided being invaded and that
| isn't necessarily a result of a country's legal system.
| But the 50s was a very long time ago now and the era
| since then has been quite equal-opportunity outside
| pockets of disaster in Africa and the Middle East. The
| USSR, Chinese, Euro and US experiences haven't been
| determined by external factors or historical determinism
| as much as internal policy choices made in the 60s, 70s,
| 80s, 90s and 00s with a 20-30 year lag before the
| decisions start to turn up in real life.
|
| Even if we indulge in wild conspiracy and pretend there
| is a shadowy cabal in Washington that decided to crush
| the USSR and exalt China economically, that cabal would
| have had to implement its decisions by somehow guiding
| internal policy choices in the respective nations. Nobody
| has managed to do anything to either of them through
| external pressure that holds a candle to the internal
| choices made.
| margalabargala wrote:
| We absolutely do, and in fact doing so is the primary job
| of many of the higher courts in the US.
| flakeoil wrote:
| But how do you define advertising. What about social media
| influencers? How to prevent someone from paying people to
| promote stuff? What if it is forbidden and then only a bad
| government can promote their agenda, but anyone else
| cannot.
| dismalpedigree wrote:
| Make paying to promote stuff is what the author asserted.
|
| If it also results in all the social media influencers
| behind bars, then its a double-win.
| margalabargala wrote:
| We don't define advertising, we describe the sorts of
| things we would like to see go away, enumerate some of
| the easiest (like billboards), and amend in the future as
| newer manifestations become clear.
|
| This isn't some piece of rigidly-defined software
| instruction that also is somehow write-once execute-
| forever amend-never.
| jononor wrote:
| One would never reach zero. And it would be challenging both
| to define and police laws against advertising. But to get to
| a world with drastically less advertisements than today seems
| doable.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So we want the government to decide what is advertising and
| propaganda? Is telling people about the wrongs of
| government propaganda? Is going door to door about have you
| made Jesus the head of your life propaganda?
| jychang wrote:
| Yeah? The government defines what is murder, defines what
| is tax evasion, and defines tons of other stuff already?
| Some states already have laws against billboards?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| How would you like the government deciding some cause
| they didn't agree with is advertising?
|
| If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances
| that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is
| advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom
| of religion?
|
| And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going
| to block foreign websites?
|
| I can give you a real world example. Florida requires age
| verification for porn sites. Sites not based in the US
| including the ones owned by MindGeek just ignored it.
| amelius wrote:
| We can start by banning ads for products and services
| that cost money.
|
| > And how would that work over the Internet? Are you
| going to block foreign websites?
|
| We just address the big platforms. No need to be
| exhaustive in the first attempt.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| So you put American companies at a disadvantage and that
| means companies could just advertise on foreign websites.
| Are you going to block those websites? Again we see it
| happening today, the American porn websites are losing
| money to foreign websites owned by MindGeek.
|
| Why wouldn't the same happen to more mainstream sites.
|
| Do we also ban Netflix and other streaming services from
| having an ad tier? Do we make all search engines and
| other content providers for pay?
|
| How do broadcast companies make money without
| advertising? Do we want the government funding and
| controlling content?
| jychang wrote:
| American websites implement GDPR even though that's an EU
| law. Websites that are used across geopolitical
| boundaries will invariably follow US law. There will
| certainly be a few exceptions, but if the law is written
| like the GDPR, then they'd be illegally violating the
| law.
|
| And services like Netflix losing an ad supported tier is
| just like... Netflix in 2021. I fail to see that as
| alarming.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And how does broadcast Tv work in your no ad supported TV
| world? Would everyone have to pay for Google for search?
| Could you not get any news if you couldn't pay for it?
|
| Websites that do not have any European presence could
| care less about EU law. I just gave a real world example
| of what's going on in the US right now. Florida has a law
| that says porn sites must have age verification. Xvideos
| completely ignores the law.
|
| But back to Google, if it weren't ad supported, does that
| mean minors couldn't use it or the poor? Right now, poor
| and even homeless people can get smart phones for free
| with data (or use WiFi) from the government.
|
| Would people he don't have home internet access who can
| now go to the library not use Google if they don't pay
| for it?
| jychang wrote:
| How old are you?
|
| Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by
| "viewers like you"? And historically TV advertising was
| banned until the FCC allowed it. And you do realize that
| news used to be paid? You'd be surprised that... people
| used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast,
| which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy.
|
| Really, you're trying to imply that society wouldn't
| function without advertising- when it was the default
| until the last 100 years or so. Perhaps you should watch
| Mad Men on HBO, which depicts the 1960s era when
| sociopaths of the advertising industry decided to
| redefine advertising as a necessity of modern living.
|
| > Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart
| phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the
| government.
|
| If the government is willing to subsidize Google Android
| phones running on a network like AT&T or T-Mobile for
| poor people... what's to stop the government from also
| subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well? It's
| not like Google's gonna care much about poor people,
| people who are that poor tend not to be good advertising
| targets anyways. The juicy ad market is elsewhere.
| Similarly, have you gone to any library recently?
| Libraries already offer stuff like access to a NYTimes or
| WSJ subscription, or even things like LinkedIn Learning.
| Adding Google to the list as another subscription that
| they offer to library card holders for free is a
| nonissue.
|
| Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed
| into being unable to visualize a society without
| advertising.
|
| Frankly, nobody gives a shit if EU or whatever websites
| continue to do their thing. US porn sites have negative
| political capital anyways, XVideos continuing operate as
| before impacting the US porn industry would make any
| hypothetical law EASIER to pass, not more difficult.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > _Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported
| by viewers like you._
|
| I'm old enough to know that even in the 80s Mr. Rogers
| was in front of congress asking the government not to cut
| funding because some conservative congressmen were
| opposed to some of the content.
|
| And the actual phrase was "... _and_ viewers like you"
|
| PBS always had corporate "sponsors" they announced during
| pre or post show credits just like NPR does today.
| Corporate "sponsors" are just advertisers by a different
| name.
|
| How do you think the current administration would think
| about PBS supporting gay pride month or Black history
| month? Would the current government help fund HBCU
| libraries or would they come under their "anti DEI"
| crusade?
|
| > _And historically TV advertising was banned until the
| FCC allowed it_
|
| This is not true. The earliest TV and radio broadcasting
| companies were advertising supported.
|
| > _You 'd be surprised that... people used read the
| newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few
| cents and was delivered by a paperboy._
|
| And those papers still had advertising. The subscriptions
| never paid the total cost of newspaper publications
|
| > _when it was the default until the last 100 years or
| so_
|
| Coca Cola has been big in advertising since it was first
| incorporated in 1880s. Are you saying there was no
| advertising 100 years ago on media that didn't exist like
| the radio, TV and internet?
|
| > _what 's to stop the government from also subsidizing
| Google Search for poor people as well_
|
| You mean the same government today that is rewriting
| history, purging government websites and has a list of
| words that agencies can't say? You want that government
| having more control of private speech? Or would you
| prefer the last government who also pressured private
| entities not to publish things that went against the
| government narrative about Covid? Even though now we know
| some of the things that they suppressed was true.
|
| I don't mean the anti-vax stuff. I mean the government
| wouldn't admit for the longest that immunity from the
| vaccine waned and you needed another shot after six
| months even though other government's health agencies
| started recommending them.
|
| > _Adding Google to the list as another subscription that
| they offer to library card holders for free is a
| nonissue._
|
| And then also those sites that Google is linking to? What
| are the chances that the government allows libraries to
| pay for content that the government disagrees with?
|
| Would the current government pay for access to Fox News
| _and_ The Guardian or just Fox News? Today the government
| is withholding funding from colleges that don't toe the
| line and says things it disagrees with. Oh yeah and
| deporting protesters who are here legally. This is the
| government that you want paying for and controlling
| content?
|
| > _Honestly, it just sounds like you 've been brainwashed
| into being unable to visualize a society without
| advertising._
|
| Well seeing that you are factually wrong about history
| and ignoring what the government is doing right now when
| it comes to making sure that only its views are heard....
|
| And I'm bringing up porn because porn websites are
| regulated today heavily in some states and one of the
| most popular sites overall which is not hosted in the US
| is completely ignoring it.
|
| As far as sites with negative capital, in todays client,
| any site that is pro-Palestine, LGBT, minorities, anti
| Musk/Trump etc not only has negative capital, it's
| actually been pressured by the government and news
| organizations are already capitulating.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > If you live in a conservative state, what are the
| chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is
| advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom
| of religion?
|
| A nonsensical argument. You might as well ask how "Oh
| yeah, you want to ban murder? Well how would you like it
| if conservative states say that abortion is murder, and
| killing negroes isn't? Clearly outlawing murder is
| unworkable."
|
| Great job pointing out that laws can be misinterpreted by
| motivated judges, I guess we should get rid of all the
| laws then to make sure that doesn't happen.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| Whether I commit murder is objective. Speech is always
| subjective.
|
| Even if abortion is murder is objective based on the
| state laws. We see right now how government controlling
| speech that it doesn't like is harmful.
|
| Again I'm amazed that people want to give the government
| more power unnecessarily seeing the current abuses of
| power and how it is used to punish people the government
| doesn't like.
|
| We should limit the power of the government to only
| punishing things that infringe on our rights and our
| person.
| Duwensatzaj wrote:
| > Whether I commit murder is objective.
|
| Homicide is objective. Murder is unlawful homicide and
| therefore subjective.
| brookst wrote:
| Even the line between homicide and manslaughter is
| subjective.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Whether I commit murder is objective.
|
| There are many different ways humans can die and many
| different types of human involvement in sequence of
| events. This involvement is sometimes characterized as a
| causal contributor to death. Responsibility in a related
| death, is not objective. You are simply incorrect.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I mean, roe v wade clearly shows it is not objective at
| all. There's always edge cases in life. Abortion aside,
| also consider the context of self defense vs. Meditated
| murder with a plan to hide the body.
|
| >Again I'm amazed that people want to give the government
| more power unnecessarily s
|
| Well we've done a horrible job self-regulating. This
| abuse of power also teaches us that ideas without
| enforcement is just daydreaming. If that all you wanted
| to do in this article, go ahead.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| Yes and the current government today isn't already
| suppressing speech and going after organizations that say
| stuff it disagree with.
|
| We are currently also doing a horrible job at eating
| correctly. Do you want the government to regulate how
| much we eat to?
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| The point is that advertising and propaganda are
| indistinguishable. Going door-to-door to talk about Jesus
| is the same as going door-to-door to talk about vacuums,
| but neither is anything like roadside billboards or
| programmatic advertising. We can ditch the billboards and
| the programmatic advertising and get a better world, even
| if some advertisers and propagandists still go door-to-
| door. At least when it's door-to-door the
| advertiser/propagandist has to really work for it, and
| you have the option of just not opening the door.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So it's just "programmatic advertising" that should be
| banned and not self hosted advertising by an internal
| sales team?
| bediger4000 wrote:
| No, that should be banned as well.
| anjel wrote:
| Something like the dearly departed Equal Time Doctrine,
| but more expansive across all politocal comms might be a
| sufficient detergent.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| If I publish a website of my views, do I have to publish
| opposing views? Do religious channels and sites have to
| publish pro choice opinions? Do you have to publish
| opposing views about vaccines that they cause autism? Do
| you also have to give equal time to people who believe
| the "election was stolen"?
| anjel wrote:
| If you did, would Fox News be a going concern? Could R.
| Limbaugh have even tried? Friction isn't just for dark
| patterns.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So now you're okay with the government telling every
| single publisher that they must publish content they
| don't agree with?
|
| The Fairness Doctrine was only for broadcast TV under the
| theory that the people owned the airwaves. Also this is
| not 1980. Anyone can get worldwide distribution of their
| ideas out.
| NikkiA wrote:
| Animated LED billboards are the worst :(
| cogman10 wrote:
| > that will give other nations an economic advantage and
| jeopardizing long-term sovereignty.
|
| What? How? Advertising isn't a good or service. About the
| only way I could see it economically being damaging is if you
| subscribe to the "broken windows" theory of economics.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Advertising tells me what goods and services are available,
| and at what prices. This is a service.
| cogman10 wrote:
| So does a search engine and 3rd party reviewers.
|
| Further, any store will be pretty highly incentivized to
| provide a quick list of goods or services offered and
| likely the prices (most already do this).
|
| I don't need the same ad repeated 20 times to know that
| Ford sells cars and trucks.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| > I don't need the same ad repeated 20 times to know that
| Ford sells cars and trucks.
|
| Not only that, but the Ford ad of a vehicle driving
| cinematically across a landscape before disgorging a
| laughing and implausibly photogenic family does nothing
| to inform you about the relative merits of the vehicle.
| Anything specific mentioned in the advert is as likely to
| be flimflam or only technical truth as not, so _nothing_
| mentioned in the advert can be taken as useful purchase-
| informing fact without further research.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Exactly. There's an economic negative to advertising,
| particularly in the US, because "puffery" is legal. That
| gives advertisers nearly complete free reign to lie about
| stuff (especially if they put in a small white text
| disclaimer that says the things you are seeing and
| hearing aren't really true.)
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| So did phone books and catalogues. Ensuring why dispersal
| of information about services and prices does not require
| advertising.
| a1j9o94 wrote:
| Wouldn't phone books and catalogues count as advertising?
| AngryData wrote:
| I don't think anyone is against receiving marketing
| information they request, like a catalog. It is far
| different than advertising that people are essentially
| forced to view even if they don't want to see it. You
| request a catalog, just like you might request to view an
| online store's website. But advertising you don't request
| is a completely different ballgame. Imagine if every time
| you turned on or sat down at your computer it forced an
| open specific newspaper's site, or reddit, or twitter,
| and there was no way to stop it from happening. If every
| time you drove down a specific road all your electronic
| devices opened up some random website you didn't request
| or want. That is what people have a problem with.
| snowe2010 wrote:
| Phone books (at least in the US) were sent out for free.
| You didn't subscribe to them or request them. They were
| advertising.
| chgs wrote:
| So I can choose to opt into this service?
| epidemian wrote:
| Not really, or at least i don't see how. Advertising can
| at most tell me which companies are spending a
| significant portion of their budget in ads instead of in
| making a good product or service.
|
| To put it another way: where i live, ads for cheese or
| meat are non existent (while ads for fast food or
| cigarettes are very common), and yet i know that those
| products are available on supermarkets or other food
| stores. And i can find cheeses and meats of many brands,
| qualities and prices on those stores.
|
| I don't see how having ads for those things would be an
| improvement. In fact, i suspect that ads would be used to
| convince people to buy products of less quality, or
| downright toxic, as seen on the rampant fast food and
| cigarette ads.
| const_cast wrote:
| > Advertising tells me what goods and services are
| available, and at what prices.
|
| No, it doesn't actually, it does the opposite. It's
| attempting to make you less aware of what's available
| outside of the monopolies, because the monopolies shove
| the barrel and there's no room left.
|
| If you take a walk through town versus watch TV for a day
| you will get a completely different view of what products
| and services are out there. This mentality is exactly why
| small business continue to struggle - we're made to
| believe they don't exist because of advertising.
|
| The reason this works is because the human brain is
| pretty stupid and it can't keep everything in it all at
| once. You also don't get a choice in what you remember,
| your brain does that without your consent. So you see
| McDonald's 1000 times and your local butcher shop signage
| 5 times and you'll remember one, but not the other.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| If advertising isn't a service, why do so many people pay
| for this, uh, "non-service"?
| jongjong wrote:
| Advertising is unsolicited content which attempts to trigger
| or nudge a behaviour.
|
| There should be a limit on the quantity of advertising.
| Limited to like 100 people a day on average. We already have
| anti-spam laws.
|
| There would still be advertising but it would be from people
| from your own communities instead of big corporations.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Advertising is unsolicited content which attempts to
| trigger or nudge a behaviour.
|
| So I'm listening to the radio, and one minute I'm hearing
| someone on NPR (or an equivalent public broadcaster)
| explaining how to make my back healthier; the next minute
| there's someone trying to convince me that some product
| will make my back healthier.
|
| Which one is advertising and which one is not?
| viraptor wrote:
| > explaining HOW TO make my back healthier
|
| > that SOME PRODUCT will make my back healthier.
|
| Is it really that tricky?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| It is. The advice from the expert includes
| recommendations to buy a type of product, perhaps without
| a brand name.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Ads are inauthentic speech someone is paid to express. If
| entity A pays entity B to say or display their words or
| content, it's an ad.
|
| This is not an impossible problem. It doesn't need to be
| perfect, and we can iterate.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Or, instead of trying to decide which speech is good and
| which is bad, we could let anyone say anything they want,
| across any medium the cost of which they are willing to
| bear.
| stubish wrote:
| The one where some sort of payment can be demonstrated in
| court. So quite possibly both if someone at the
| broadcaster accepted free back care services and decided
| to produce the story. But yeah, it could get very murky
| if you go down the rabbit hole and include things like
| owning shares in a health care provider.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| What you can do relatively easily is to control the _physical
| format_ of advertising. For example, consider how rare
| "billboards" are outside of the USA. Or towns in various
| places that prohibit signage that is not in the same plane as
| the edge of the building (i.e. no sticky-outy signs).
|
| Or for that matter, consider Berlin, which has banned all
| non-cultural advertising on public transportation. Yes,
| there's some edge cases that are tricky, but overall the
| situation doesn't seem too fraught.
| cavisne wrote:
| Billboards being rare outside of the US seems quite
| incorrect. The developing world is full of billboards, and
| places in Europe like Milan have some wild Samsung
| billboards.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| OK, let me restate that: there are places (even a few
| within the USA) that have very few or no billboards,
| because they are banned.
| anjel wrote:
| Good luck getting e.g. Formula 1 to take down their
| sponsorship banners.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| You don't think F1 would follow the law?
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone#C
| ontroversie...
| stavros wrote:
| I'm not sure what your argument is. I thought it was
| "they've done illegal things before", to which I'd say
| "backroom dealings aren't the same as a huge sign
| basically saying 'look at me breaking the law over
| here'", but that's so trivially obvious that I'm sure
| your argument can't be that.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Anecdote: If you are driving through Canada and start
| seeing billboards beside the highway, you are very likely
| crossing a native reservation. Billboards are generally
| banned but native communities have more direct control
| over their own land use and so regularly operate
| billboards.
|
| (Billboards also also reasonably good as sound
| reflectors, reducing the highway noise in the community
| if positioned properly.)
| gerdesj wrote:
| The UK, outside of cities is largely devoid of bill
| boards a la the US. Milan is not "Europe" either!
|
| I have driven/travelled across a lot, nearly all,
| European countries and the other one - the UK.
|
| You do not get those huge screens on stilts anywhere that
| I have seen in Europe, that seem to be common across the
| US.
|
| To be fair, I've only driven across about 10 US states.
| However, I do have Holywood's and other's output to act
| as a proxy and it seems that US companies do love to
| shout it from the hill tops at vast expense and fuck up
| the scenery with those bill board thingies.
|
| Try driving around La Toscana and say Florida. I've done
| both, multiple times and I'm a proper outsider. I love
| both regions quite passionately but for very different
| reasons. FL has way more issues in my opinion but we are
| discussing bill boards so let's stay on task.
|
| Billboards require power as well as the obvious physical
| attributes. They are an absolute eyesore and in my
| opinion should be abolished. Turn them into wind turbines
| and do some good - the basics are in place.
|
| However. I know FL quite well. It has a lovely climate
| (unless it is trying to kill you). Florida man almost
| certainly invented air conditioning and FL man being FL
| man took it to the max when confronted with a rather
| lovely climate.
|
| FL man is a thing and it turns out that CA Pres. can be
| weirder than anything seen before.
|
| US - remember your mates, we remember you as is and don't
| hold you accountable for going a bit odder than usual for
| a while.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > I do have Holywood's ... output to act as a proxy and
| it seems that US companies do love to shout it from the
| hill tops at vast expense and fuck up the scenery with
| those bill board thingies.
|
| This reminded me of learning the Hollywood sign was
| literally an advertisement (shouted from the hill top)
| that turned into a cultural landmark
|
| On to the point for the topic, parts of Asia (mid/large
| cities) are overwhelming with their advertisements which
| I don't think the US or EU/UK can compare either
| gerdesj wrote:
| Perhaps Asia could rebel against rampant adverts.
|
| My first thoughts: You might be able to make those bill
| boards synonymous with imperialism of some sort. That
| gets you loads of negative connotations for free.
|
| ... also not far from the truth.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> Billboards require power_
|
| Digital billboards, sure, but traditional static
| billboards only need power if you want to light them at
| night. My guess is the majority of billboards in the US
| are unpowered, since it's so much cheaper. (Though likely
| not the majority if you weight by daily views.)
| mark-space wrote:
| say, i don't know how to PM you on this site... would
| like to ask you about your rustdesk post from somewhen
| around 2022?
| bondarchuk wrote:
| In Amsterdam there are posters at bus stops, roughly
| similar-sized billboards by the side of the road, some of
| them are video screens. There are video screens at train
| stations at well. At busy highway interchanges there are
| towers with billboards on top, strongly lit at night. It
| may not be as bad as in the US but there is advertising
| like this in most major cities in Europe.
| triplesec wrote:
| France seems to have the most, out of the European
| countries I have spent time in. But it's not like the US
| roenxi wrote:
| That is requiring advertisers to set the HTTP evil bit. If
| advertising is fine, they're happy to make it obvious that
| something is an ad. If you ban that, suddenly it'll all be
| astroturf campaigns and product placement. I'd be surprised
| if banning billboards caused advertising budgets to drop.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| Are they happy? They resist any legislation to label
| things as ads and want them as unobtrusive as possible.
| They take over the platforms while there's still
| astroturfing and sponsored content charading as regular
| content.
|
| If we ban billboards at least the the countryside will
| look nice
| wk_end wrote:
| In theory, anyway, billboards are prevalent sans
| regulation because they're (among) the most efficient
| forms of advertising. That is, if the advertisers would
| only be spending some money on astroturf campaigns and
| product placement _instead of_ billboards, it must be
| because they're less effective than billboards -
| otherwise they'd just put that money towards the
| astroturf campaigns and product placement in the first
| place.
|
| So banning billboards makes advertising less efficient.
| In theory, anyway.
| roenxi wrote:
| If you step on a nail you'll be less efficient at walking
| for a bit. Causing random harm to people isn't really the
| basis for a reasonable system of rules. The regulators
| could cause random harm to advertisers. Society can cause
| random harm to anyone. You're not going to make consumers
| (or anyone else, for that matter) better off.
|
| I'd much rather be fed efficient advertising on a
| billboard than have to worry about more astroturfing,
| that stuff is insidious. Cure substantially worse than
| the disease once advertisers _have_ to deceptive and have
| even bigger incentives to hide than they already do.
|
| And much as the anti-ads people want to skip the point,
| nobody ever even established that advertising is a
| negative thing that advertisers need to be harmed for.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > If you ban that, suddenly it'll all be astroturf
| campaigns and product placement.
|
| Advertising _already_ makes extensive use of astroturf
| campaigns and product placement.
|
| Cable TV started out with no ads, as a major selling
| point over broadcast TV. Then they started advertising
| because they figured they could make more money that way.
| There's no reason to believe that advertisers will ever
| refrain from introducing ads when there's money to be
| made by doing so.
| bmacho wrote:
| > If you ban that, suddenly it'll all be astroturf
| campaigns and product placement
|
| Then put them in jail, that's why we've built them.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| I saw plenty of billboards in London and Paris last summer.
| Where is this magical place in the world that has lots of
| people but no billboards?
| thakoppno wrote:
| Sao Paulo
|
| https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-
| secret...
| gamblor956 wrote:
| There are many smaller billboards visible when you use
| Street View in Google maps. Sao Paulo may have fewer
| billboards, and no large billboards, but it still has
| billboards.
| troupo wrote:
| That is often the point: you don't ban all advertisement,
| but you heavily restrict it in size, quantity and
| location
| toofy wrote:
| honolulu, well all of hawaii actually.
|
| something like 80+ percent of texas cities ban them or
| are phasing them out with heavy new restrictions.
|
| for example, in dallas, if you want a new billboard, you
| have to tear down 3. and new ones have placement and size
| restrictions.
|
| houston is no longer allowing any new off premises
| signage including billboards. the only way to erect a new
| billboard is if it passes permitting _and_ the company
| tears down one of their old ones.
|
| and like i said, like 80% of texas towns across the state
| have heavy restrictions on new or outright ban them.
|
| santa fe effectively has a ban on all off premises
| advertising which obviously includes billboards.
|
| billboard are banned on highways in the entire country of
| Norway, including urban/suburban highways.
|
| the entire state of vermont.
|
| the entire state of maine, including cities.
|
| all of washington dc, including georgetown.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Lived in London for about half my life - very few
| billboards.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| This is flat out not true.
| zabzonk wrote:
| How can you say this about my experience? For example, in
| Wood Green, North London, I can only remember seeing a
| single billboard, on the side of an off-license. Where
| have you lived where they are all around the place?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Global alone have 56,000 billboards in London and they
| aren't even the largest.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| You start conservatively, and set up a watchdog to
| investigate loopholes and punish those abusing them. Fund
| an astroturfing campaign? Congrats, that's 10 years and a
| hefty fine to fund the continued operation of the watchdog.
| You can make promotional material and publish it, but it
| has to be clearly labeled and opt-in, not bundled with
| access to something else. The problem isn't small-time
| promotion that's difficult or impossible to crack down on,
| it's that we've built a whole attention economy. So long as
| we make it a bad value proposition for big players we'll
| have succeeded.
| msla wrote:
| Well, you have to convince people to vote for you and
| your policies.
|
| How would you do that?
|
| How exactly would that work?
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Is that supposed to be a gotcha? You campaign. Talk to
| people, spread your message. You don't buy ads, you hold
| rallies. Encourage supporters to talk to friends and
| family. Do interviews. Is your idea of political
| participation limited to purchasing Instagram ads?
| msla wrote:
| Rallies aren't advertisements, now.
|
| Well, I suppose that's one loophole.
|
| It isn't as if companies can't hold rallies.
|
| It isn't as if flash mobs don't exist.
|
| And "spreading your message"... what do you think going
| viral is, exactly?
|
| What is "viral marketing" to you?
| chii wrote:
| "What _I_ do isn't advertising, because _I_ have the
| public and society's interest at heart!"
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is all very simple to dostinguish: did you pay or
| have any other kind of contract with the person talking
| about you/your product? Then it's an ad, and could be
| made illegal. Are you just talking to people and hoping
| you'll convince them to talk to others in turn? Free
| speech, perfectly fine.
| snowe2010 wrote:
| I mean... that means you can't hire people to get
| signatures for petitions for the very thing you're trying
| to get passed. I think their point is pretty fair.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Correct, you can't hire them or offer an award. You _can_
| ask for volunteers, relying on a smaller group of
| supporters built by word of mouth.
| luckylion wrote:
| That'd be the supersized network-effect, making it close
| to impossible to challenge incumbents.
|
| Except by tricks "well, you provided free coffee to your
| volunteers, that's a form of payment, you're all going to
| jail".
| jbeninger wrote:
| Money for advertising is already a super sized network
| effect, making it difficult to challenge incumbents
| unless you're already rich,
|
| Look, it's a radical idea and on its face, all at once,
| is impractical at the moment. So I suggest rather than
| pointing out the myriad of holes like shooting fish in a
| barrel, you give it the benefit of the doubt and roll
| around the ways it _could_ work in your head. And what
| your online /offline experience would be if it were even
| 10% effective.
|
| It already is that effective in a lot of the world with
| stricter advertising laws, and as a Canadian I do find
| the levels of advertising in the us landscape to be
| jarring. So there are examples
| luckylion wrote:
| Money is much easier to combine though. You can convince
| 1000 people to each donate $100 and now you have a
| sizeable amount to run a campaign. Convincing _and
| coordinating_ 1000 people to each talk to five neighbors
| is _much_ harder, and much less effective since the
| messaging will be all over the place.
|
| Strict regulation of ads is one thing, outlawing
| advertising is another. There are places that don't allow
| billboards and other street-level advertisement, but
| that's a long way from outlawing advertisements in
| general.
|
| I get that it's a nice idea to many, but I follow a
| general rule of adding extra skepticism if the problems
| of some approach are absolutely obvious and the response
| to pointing them out is "don't worry about, that'll sort
| itself out, let's just do it". Especially when the
| collateral damage might be huge and the energy feels like
| "this will save us".
| concordDance wrote:
| If I'm in green tech can I set up a charity whose goal is
| to raise awareness of the problems of climate change and
| what we can do to fight it? I'll claim that I really care
| about it and that's why I'm in the solar business in the
| first place.
| lodovic wrote:
| Companies holding rallies is fine, as long as people
| outside the rally, in a public space, are not unwillingly
| confronted with ads. Organizing flash mobs as a way to do
| marketing should indeed be illegal if ads themselves are
| illegal.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Note: the proposal being discussed is to ban advertising,
| not marketing.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| How are those different in your opinion?
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Not the OP, but one way to look at it is:
|
| All Advertising is Marketing, but not all Marketing is
| Advertising.
|
| I think the distinction should be thought of as Marketing
| (not Advertising) is to inform customers that opt-in to
| the information. Usually, marketing (excluding the
| Advertising arm) is for the benefit of a willing
| participant, where-as Advertising is for the benefit of
| both the willing participant and also the Advertiser (&
| advertising media) _against_ an unwitting participant
| /user.
|
| An example could be a product, company, political
| candidate's website that has a calendar for upcoming
| events, information pages about the product, etc. This
| can include tacky graphics and UI/UX, or even strategic
| language to stand out and show "personality". What it can
| not have are advertising boxes for unrelated advertising
| injections that the user did not go to the website to
| learn about. That would then be a Marketing site _with_
| banned Advertisements. The same for the Marketed product,
| they can not Advertise on unrelated media; basically
| inserting itself against the users will (the Advertised
| product being placed /injected/"forced" upon the
| person/user).
| asdf6969 wrote:
| Stop being so pedantic. Everyone knows what the topic is
| about. "Ban advertising" is the goal and not the policy
| itself. Start with the obvious and unambiguous examples
| if you still want to act like this. Do you still
| disagree?
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| How do people find out about the rally?
| Chinjut wrote:
| The argument you seem to be proposing applies to any
| policy whatsoever. "Well, you have to convince people to
| vote for you and your policies". Ok, sure, that's what's
| being done.
| msla wrote:
| My point is, that process of convincing is advertising.
|
| So they'll only ban non-political advertising... until
| they decide your movement isn't political for the
| purposes of the laws. It's too obvious, and too tempting,
| a cudgel for any government to have.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| No, convincing is not advertising. Mein Kampf is not an
| ad, as abhorrent as it is.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > So they'll only ban non-political advertising
|
| That's likely to be the case _anyway_ , because
| politicians are rarely willing to restrict themselves.
| The US Do Not Call list has an exception for political
| spam.
|
| (See also: why the two biggest political parties are
| unlikely to support better voting systems.)
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| There are other (democratic) countries with restriction
| on political ads. For the ruling party it isn't as bad as
| they got other means (official government communication
| etc.) while advertising is mostly needed as a tool for
| the opposition for being able to bring topics on the
| agenda.
| camgunz wrote:
| Political messaging is more than TV ads and mailers.
| There are rallies, online groups, town halls, organizing,
| basic human communication stuff.
|
| ---
|
| The way we reign in government isn't by having no rules
| (the argument you're making reduces to "any rule can be
| weaponized against political opposition"), it's political
| checks to ensure weaponization doesn't happen. Or put
| another way, there is no system of rules that constrains
| a regime defined by its rule breaking.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Organizing involves advertising
|
| Though I could imagine only official debates and no other
| communication allowed would be a no advertising approach
| camgunz wrote:
| Door knocking is not advertising, it's having a
| conversation with people in your community.
| godelski wrote:
| Is my comment an ad?
|
| Am I an ad?
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=J7XOCG_P6o4
| simgt wrote:
| It's all about scale, really. In France advertising for
| political parties is very restricted. We don't get to
| endure the kind of insane propaganda Americans have.
| troupo wrote:
| I find these types of questions infuriating.
|
| How exactly does it work in _other countries but the US_?
|
| There's very little outside advertising in Sweden, for
| example, and mostly restricted to cultural advertising.
| Road shoulders belong to Traffic Authority, and all
| advertising and billboards are banned there, so you won't
| see the insanity pf billboard after billboard here.
|
| So how did Sweden do that? By political will and
| persuasion perhaps?
|
| Political advertising also adheres to certain rules. And
| while there's _a lot_ of it in a few months before
| elections, it 's still surprisingly contained compared to
| some countries
| tennis_80 wrote:
| In the UK there's a lot of screens on pedestrian
| walkways, and small adverts on roundabouts but very few
| motorway (highway) adverts.
|
| On the motorway there's signs for services (rest stops)
| with all the major brands logos on, and maybe one or two
| billboards every 30 / 40 miles outside of city centres,
| then more as you come into a city centre.
|
| I've also recently noticed a massive vertical screen on
| the side of a building near a busy interchange in my city
| (Manchester).
|
| Public transport is littered with small adverts - on
| underground's / metros there's a lot of posters on
| escalators and buses have a lot inside, plus usually a
| big banner on the side (or a full skin of the bus but
| they're fairly rare at least in my city).
|
| Political advertising is capped at PS20 million per
| party, but our newspapers do most of the real political
| propaganda come election time in terms of what stories
| they cover / who they endorse in their editorials (or
| sometimes they allow a major candidate to write one). The
| BBC also lets all parties with some traction do a 5
| minute party political broadcast.
|
| When I've watched some live US TV channels I've been
| amazed by how many "Vote X for Y, paid for by Z PAC"
| adverts there are and am thankful UK parties can't spend
| anywhere near the same amount.
| realo wrote:
| Exactly!
|
| Here in Canada it is illegal to advertise tobacco
| products. It is also illegal to target young children
| with toy ads, etc...
|
| So far no one objects, on the contrary. No one wants to
| overthrow our government because they deem it
| totalitarian or think it curtails free speech.
|
| So... one more data point.
| theamk wrote:
| Agree, that'd totally work - things like "billboards" or
| "ads on public transport" are possible to define and
| regulate. Advertising on the web would be much harder, I'd
| like to hear a good proposed rule on that.
|
| Sadly, a post titled "A proposal to restrict certain forms
| of advertizing", and full of boring rules will be much less
| likely to get 800+ points on HN.
| markdown wrote:
| Billboards are banned in the state of Hawaii.
| caseyy wrote:
| That's exactly right. Even if ad banning isn't 100% doable,
| we'd be better off with it done 80%.
|
| All-or-nothing thinking is so common in HN that it's
| seriously over-complicating simple problems by trying to
| find a perfect solution. Such an ideal solution is rarely
| necessary.
| dlenski wrote:
| > Or towns in various places that prohibit signage that is
| not in the same plane as the edge of the building (i.e. no
| sticky-outy signs).
|
| In many places where these signs are banned, old
| grandfathered-in examples have become beloved heritage
| landmarks.
|
| The musee Carnavallet in Paris has a fascinating exhibit on
| the city's history based entirely on old business
| advertising signs.
|
| An example here in Vancouver:
| https://vancouversun.com/news/whats-the-future-bow-mac-
| sign-...)
|
| I detest a lot of modern forms of advertising as much as
| the next guy, but at the same time I think we'd be choking
| off a lot of interesting and enriching human expression by
| trying to remove it entirely.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I find it super interesting reading about goat and human
| sacrifices done by past cultures. It was a genuinely
| fascinating part of human culture, that humans thought
| that could help appease the gods to fix the weather, etc.
|
| Just because it was done in the past, and is interesting
| to learn about, doesn't mean we shouldn't outright ban
| it.
| dlenski wrote:
| You're comparing blood sacrifices of animals and humans
| to... artistic signage advertising businesses?
| LadyCailin wrote:
| Yes. The point is just because it has been done before
| and holds some interesting historical value doesn't mean
| it is valuable to continue to do.
| codethief wrote:
| > Or for that matter, consider Berlin, which has banned all
| non-cultural advertising on public transportation.
|
| Why have I not heard about this. Is this a recent thing?
| michaelhoney wrote:
| If you can't imagine it, try a bit harder. We can build a
| better world, but it takes effort.
| baumy wrote:
| Would you be interested in making a comment that adds to
| the conversation, instead of whatever this was? The person
| you're replying to identified constraints that prevent him
| from imagining it - any system for restricting
| advertisements will either be permissive enough that it's
| ineffective, or strict enough that it will be abused for
| political reasons. This sounds like a reasonable concern.
|
| Can you imagine a realistic way around this issue?
| jjk166 wrote:
| The problem is the harder you try to imagine it, the less
| it looks like a better world.
|
| Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its
| own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we
| enjoy. Getting rid of a billboard for something I am never
| going to buy sounds great, but it kinda sucks for the
| person who actually is interested in the thing that
| billboard is advertising. Even if there were some type of
| advertising that provided no benefit to any part of
| society, the restriction on the freedom to communicate
| those advertisements is something that harms all of us.
|
| Sometimes the part of building a better world that takes
| the most effort is recognizing where we already have.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in
| its own right, and fundamental to so many other good
| things we enjoy
|
| I would argue that paid advertisement is a force
| distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay
| to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone
| else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave
| or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the
| only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able
| to buy you that power?
| chii wrote:
| > Why should money be able to buy you that power?
|
| why shouldn't it?
|
| If somebody believes that their message is important
| enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to
| be the one that is displayed.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| If they believe their message is important they should do
| grassroots, talk to people and convince people to talk to
| other people. Trust me, if the message is good people
| volunteer their time.
|
| The reality is that more often than not these messages
| are self serving and profit driven, many times borderline
| fraudulous in claims or questionable at best
| chii wrote:
| > The reality is that more often than not these messages
| are self serving and profit driven
|
| the reality is that all messages, even those you think
| ought to be a grassroots message, are all self-serving.
| It's just self-serving for you as well as the message
| deliverer. And those "advertising" messages are self-
| serving, but not for you (or your tribe).
|
| Therefore, this is just a thinly disguised way to try
| suppress the messages of those whose self-interest does
| not align with your own, rather than an altruistic
| reason.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > If somebody believes that their message is important
| enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to
| be the one that is displayed.
|
| Sometimes (often?) people with a lot of money may not
| believe in speech but in suppressing speech. However,
| money should not allow for suppressing speech, for
| example by buying a giant megaphone and speaking over
| people.
|
| By your logic paying people $500 to heckle at your
| political opponents rally is fine. It may be legally
| okay, but it is a moral hazard, and for a better society
| we should try to better distinguish between "free" speech
| and "bought and paid for" speech.
| CJefferson wrote:
| Because that means something Elon Musk thinks is 0.00001%
| important outbids 99.99999% of peoples opinion on
| anything.
| chii wrote:
| > it kinda sucks for the person who actually is
| interested in the thing that billboard is advertising
|
| and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who
| is drawing a revenue from it.
|
| People who proclaim that doing XYZ to make the world
| better, is not really considering the entirety of the
| world - just their corner. To claim that it would make
| the world better, they must show evidence that it doesn't
| hurt somebody else (who just happens to be in a different
| tribe to the proposer).
| barrell wrote:
| But it's kind of great for the upshot who can't afford
| the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can.
|
| And it's kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds,
| thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who
| don't have some eye soar blocking their view.
|
| Your argument is basically that there are some people who
| benefit from advertising--I promise you anyone
| antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.
| chii wrote:
| > anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered
| this fact.
|
| and yet, the apparent disregard for the interests of
| those currently benefiting from advertising is dismissed
| as mere trifles, not worthy of compensation.
|
| Policy suggestions should not be so one sided. I would
| always use the veil of ignorance, and ensure that any
| policy suggestion go through this retorical device.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Is your veil weighted?
|
| It is not equally likely you will benefit from
| advertising as it is likely you will be harmed by
| advertising under a veil of ignorance scenario.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Even if the authoritarianism to enforce it weren't by itself
| undesirable, banning advertising creates a situation where
| incumbents (known names) have a significant advantage over
| new entrants to a market.
|
| It's worth analyzing why a society wants that and who
| benefits from it.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >banning advertising creates a situation where incumbents
| (known names) have a significant advantage over new
| entrants to a market.
|
| The article almost explicitly states that this is precisely
| the goal. We all understand who those populists in 2016
| are, who "bypass traditional media gatekeepers and deliver
| tailored messages to susceptible audiences".
|
| So I think we are not talking about authoritarianism here,
| but full-fledged totalitarianism. Such a policy is a
| powerful lever of control, allowing government to obtain
| even more levers. And in the end people still vote
| "wrongly" (spoiler: they are voting "wrongly" not because
| of some Russian advertisement on facebook), but the
| government at that point will not care anymore how people
| vote because that will not affect anything.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| As a fantasy it sounds nice but it immediately hits the wall
| of the 1st amendment.
| cookingrobot wrote:
| How is that? There are lots of things that are illegal that
| are just "speech".
|
| Fraud, threats, impersonation, etc etc.
| wskish wrote:
| Amplified messaging from corporations is not the same as
| the free speech of individuals. Just as we disallow
| advertising for cigarettes and hard liquor on TV, a
| democratic society should be free to select other classes
| of messages that corporations are not permitted to amplify
| into public spaces.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Hard liquor ads are all over (e.g.) broadcasts of NFL
| games.
|
| Cigarette advertising "bans" are not legislated, IIRC,
| but a result of the various consolidated settlements of
| the 1990s-era lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
| They're essentially voluntary, and it's not obvious that
| a genuine ban would survive constitutional scrutiny. It
| might: Commercial speech is among the least protected
| forms of speech.
|
| But at some point a line is crossed: Painting "Read the
| New York _Times_ " on the side of a barn you own is bread
| & butter freedom of expression.
| TomasBM wrote:
| Outside the US (e.g., Europe), advertising bans for
| tobacco and liquor can work quite well.
|
| Sure, there will always be bad cases and loopholes - even
| bans on murder don't work 100% - but there's a reason
| "bans" are still a viable mechanism.
| const_cast wrote:
| > But at some point a line is crossed: Painting "Read the
| New York Times" on the side of a barn you own is bread &
| butter freedom of expression.
|
| Okay, then don't make that illegal.
|
| I don't understand this mentality of "everything is the
| same as everything else so we can't do anything".
|
| Sure, it's all just scale. But scale matters. Scale is
| why I can do a science experiment at home and it's cool,
| but I can't make a nuclear warhead. Seems for just about
| everything we've been able to find that line and work
| around it. This "we've tried nothing and we're all out of
| ideas" approach to society is toxic, and we need to stop.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| Yeah unfortunately Citizens United really did a number on
| the judicial stance on funded "speech"
| xrortrad wrote:
| It doesn't sound nice. It sounds utterly insane and
| totalitarian.
|
| There is such a disturbing element of society that seems to
| want to "save democracy" by any means necessary. By "save
| democracy" they mean get the election results they want, in
| other words it has nothing at all to do with democracy.
|
| They just want power.
|
| "We should ban advertising so the people I agree with can
| have absolute power" is really what these insane people are
| saying.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| > It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you
| define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through
| the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an
| unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be
| selectively enforced against political enemies.
|
| I've been on the advertising, is an evil parasite around
| useful transactions bandwagon for a while and thought this
| was really hard to define properly.
|
| So far my best take is around that what's good is being
| discoverable instead of something that you run into. This
| allows people to do what they want, without the evil side of
| unconsciously or in-competitively driving them to your
| business/deals.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| There's two kinds of advertising: your local mom and pop
| running a labor day sale in the local paper, and megacorps
| spending billions of dollars advertising soda and roblock
| lootcrates or whatever to kids, or plastering every square
| inch of public and private space with maximally attention-
| seeking posters and billboards.
|
| One of these is good and one is bad.
| aldanor wrote:
| That's the tough part - drawing precise line. There's lots
| of points between megacorps and local mnps.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| The line could be adjusted, and would need to be as
| people exploit loopholes.
|
| If humans can't decide, we can train a LLM to be the
| arbiter.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I think the article mentions banning "sold advertising",
| which seems like a fair way to go about it. You can still
| advertise your own stuff, but you cannot pay a marketplace to
| do it for you any more. Advertising would by necessity become
| a lot more local.
| cyberax wrote:
| How would I advertise my app? Or my TV brand?
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Reputable review sites are better than random
| advertisements
| etempleton wrote:
| How do those sites make money if advertising doesn't
| exist?
|
| A major challenge in journalism is because of the
| collapse in value of banner ads. No one but the very
| largest newspapers have sustainable businesses in the
| United States and they only do because of the critical
| mass they have reached with subscribers.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| Good information is valuable. When internet didn't exist
| people paid good money for newspaper and magazines
| because they provided good information which people found
| valuable.
| halper wrote:
| I subscribe to a magazine that publishes tests and
| reviews of everything from lawn fertiliser to spices, via
| vacuums and mobile phones. It costs money and I trust
| that they are not bribed.
|
| It seems rather certain an end to advertising would mean
| the death of lots of low-quality "media".
| cyberax wrote:
| Then they can't be free, consumers need to pay for them.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Or consumers could contribute back to them making them
| free resources. Remember the early internet? It was free
| and it had no ads. That until the pop-ups and flashy
| banner ads showed up murkying the waters. It appears that
| advertising inherently wants to agressively take all out
| attention.
| cyberax wrote:
| The problem here is that I'm not subscribing to a
| magazine that reviews lawnmowers, if I need a lawnmower
| once every 10 years.
|
| Some kind of micro-transaction system is needed for this,
| so that I can easily buy just that one review.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| If I couldn't find a reputable reviewer, I would ask my
| neighbors. More trustworthy than a banner ad.
| theamk wrote:
| Do such things exist? I am pretty sure that any review
| site today has many "inorganic" reviews on them, and
| products recommended just because vendor paid more.
| rendaw wrote:
| The context of this thread is that vendors wouldn't be
| able to pay review sites.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Because its not illegal to do shenanigans and they indeed
| invaded all product review sites with dishonest reviews
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Except that reviews are ads...
| dismalpedigree wrote:
| Yet another reason to ban paid ads.
| theamk wrote:
| You spam forums, send emails and abuse any free resources
| you can find. If you can find them, that is, because
| without ad revenue they would be closing pretty quickly.
|
| It'd be a very different world, I anticipate a lot of
| paywalls and secret deals.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Post it on your windowsill? Have it show up in the search
| results or 'new apps' list on the App Store?
|
| TV brands can be set up in a department store? Like we've
| done for ages?
| whall6 wrote:
| Agree with this entirely. In fact, I would go as far as
| saying if advertising was illegal, then expressing opinions
| would be illegal. Everything is an advertisement.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| Reductio ad absurdum? I want to live in a world where we
| understand the difference between opinion and sales.
| naasking wrote:
| There's a fairly clear line between opinion and
| advertisement. For instance, one is paid for and the other
| is given freely.
| whall6 wrote:
| What does it mean to be paid? Money? Goods? Services?
| Favors?
| freeamz wrote:
| I don't know about 'advertising', but Bahai don't allow
| campaigning when running for leadership position. I would
| imagine it would be some where along line of that. It
| encourage action speakers louder than words.
|
| With all the modern techniques (used by neurosciences) in the
| modern advertising is pretty all entrainment and brain
| washing at this point any way. So no harm in making all that
| illegal. I'm pretty ok with a world with no advertising, and
| just function by word of mouth and network of trust.
| rayiner wrote:
| > And in all cases, you are self-imposing a restriction that
| will give other nations an economic advantage and
| jeopardizing long-term sovereignty.
|
| Does advertising confer an economic advantage?
| naasking wrote:
| > you are self-imposing a restriction that will give other
| nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-term
| sovereignty.
|
| I don't see how you reached this conclusion, unless you think
| advertising/propaganda yields bet positive outcomes more than
| net negative, which seems contentious.
|
| Here's one way it could be false: the wisdom of the crowds
| only really works when groups of people _independently_ reach
| their own conclusions, because people who don 't understand
| an issue are randomly distributed around the correct answer
| and so they all cancel each other out, leaving only the
| people who do understand an issue to cluster around the
| correct decision.
|
| Propaganda/advertising works directly against this, thus
| undercutting the usefulness of the wisdom of crowds.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| Don't let perfect become the enemy of good. I spent 5+ years
| living in Hawaii, where just billboards are illegal. I can't
| quantify the effect but qualitatively, it's something I
| dearly miss in the concrete hell of Southern California.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| hey why try to do anything ever, people will just find a way
| around it and it will be worse than if we did nothing. lets
| make murder legal, fewer people will get killed i guess
| patcon wrote:
| We cant define the beginning and end of human
| life/consciousness, and we've regulated it for thousands of
| years. That it is hard to define does not make it impossible
| to control
| guerrilla wrote:
| This is just the nirvana fallacy. We need to do our best.
| nazgul17 wrote:
| Perhaps just banning algorithmic advertising would be enough?
| beefnugs wrote:
| There is no reason it has to be so immoral, annoying, and
| evil. There could be a whole gamified system where people who
| choose to voluntarily participate can find things they want
| to buy from people eager to sell
| camgunz wrote:
| I see this dynamic in tech all the time:
|
| "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money
| to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is
| and we understand scaling it is immensely valuable and
| fundamentally changes everything.
|
| "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore
| harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you
| could always do X, what even is X anyway, don't tread on me,
| yadda yadda.
|
| It's so transparent to me now, and I've passed this curse
| onto you.
|
| Nothing else in law works this way. No definition is
| ironclad. This is what legislators, agencies, and courts are
| for. We all know this.
| pembrook wrote:
| Out of all of HN's biases, the violent hatred of
| advertising is by far one of the most misguided.
|
| Human attention is scarce. Demand for that attention is
| endless. Scarcity + demand creates a _natural market by
| default,_ meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to
| disrupt it entirely (vs just regulating with guardrails).
| Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism usually
| ends up worse than any downsides of the decentralized
| market regulation of that scarcity. Instead of something
| that attempts to land on fairness (even if imperfect), no
| market at all guarantees unfairness.
|
| Advertising puts a price on the scarce commodity of
| attention in broad strokes, and it not always, but
| generally trends toward making the highest value messages
| for both the audience and advertiser get seen over lower
| value messages in any given situation (because those are
| the ones that can afford the market clearing price on said
| advertising). I know, please respond with all of your "all
| these times it didn't work like that!" throw-the-baby out-
| with-the-bathwater Anecdotes.
|
| Like all markets, we should regulate advertising to ensure
| it doesn't get out of control. But to ban it outright would
| require an extreme policing of all speech at all levels of
| society.
|
| Hence why this is a non-serious, silly idea.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << the violent hatred of advertising is by far one of the
| most misguided.
|
| I am willing to give you that there is hatred. I don't
| know if it is violent, but there is actual hatred. I do
| not believe it is misguided. As the OP mentions, a lot of
| people on this site saw how the sausage is made.
|
| << Human attention is scarce.
|
| True, but each ad makes it even more scarce as humans
| instinctively try to filter out noise suggesting that ads
| do not belong in our vicinity.
|
| << Demand for that attention is endless.
|
| I disagree, but I do not want to pursue this line of
| argumentation, because it is a deep rabbit hole with a
| lot that can trip it ( and I sadly do not have time this
| Sunday ).
|
| << meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to
| disrupt it entirely
|
| You may be onto something. Current breed of corporations
| are effectively nation-states that require focus of an
| entity nearly as singular. Hmm.
|
| << no market at all guarantees unfairness.
|
| Meh, I saw the fairness and I think I am ok with its
| absence from the world at large.
|
| << generally trends toward making the highest value
| messages for both the audience and advertiser get seen
| over lower value messages in any given situation
|
| Hardly, "make your penis bigger" likely being most
| obvious example.
|
| << please respond with all of your "all these times it
| didn't work like that!" throw-the-baby out-with-the-
| bathwater Anecdotes.
|
| I think you are misunderstanding something. The reason OP
| even considers such a drastic move is because throwing
| the baby out with the water is easier than attempt at
| gentle removal. I will add one more thing though. I was
| in a meeting with non-technical audience yesterday and,
| oddly, advertising and face tracking in apps came up.
| This is all starting to trickle down to regular people,
| which does suggest some level of correction is coming.
|
| << we should regulate advertising to ensure it doesn't
| get out of control
|
| It is already out of control, but adtech managed to
| normalize it.
|
| << But to ban it outright would require an extreme
| policing of all speech at all levels of society.
|
| Hardly, maybe you could argue for freedom of association
| as we are talking mostly third parties, but the business
| would still be able to huff and puff as much as they
| want.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| What is a "natural market"?
|
| Please explain with examples from nature.
|
| Your argument begs the question. Attention is indeed
| scarce, but that's because ad tech has created an
| attention economy.
|
| Assuming that _advertising_ is the best use of human
| attention is - how can I put this politely? - really
| quite eccentric.
| grandempire wrote:
| > Please explain with examples from nature.
|
| In nature there is limited access to food, water, mates,
| and shelter.
|
| Economizing is the process of dealing with scarce
| resources.
| salawat wrote:
| Economizing is a uniquely human delusion whereby you
| suddenly think that principles of human centric markets
| somehow ascend to a primal force of the universe and
| aren't just a coping mechanism we use to try to peaceably
| coexist with one another without sinking all our time
| into killing one another to decrease competition like the
| rest of the life on the planet.
|
| Nature doesn't do markets. We do. If you apply market
| thinking to the wrong things, bad things happen. You
| don't serve the market. The market serves you.
| grandempire wrote:
| > Economizing is a uniquely human delusion
|
| No.
|
| > Nature doesn't do markets. We do
|
| Yes. It's a social tool for coping with scarcity.
| Violence is another.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Quite an interesting idea tbh, however if you want to
| frame it in commodity terms then you should also admit
| that currently, this very valuable commodity is taken
| from its owners without their consent. You could compare
| it to e.g. human labour, maybe: sure, there will always
| be a market for it, yet we allow labour to be extracted
| from people only in a heavily regulated framework and
| don't just let it be taken by force from them. Or
| property: there is a near infinite demand for physical
| objects, yet when I own a physical object you
| nevertheless can't just take it from me. So it should be
| with our attention.
| luckylion wrote:
| Is it taken without consent? Don't you consent when you
| watch YouTube, or use some ad-funded site? Don't you get
| something (the content) in return?
|
| There are alternatives, but most people choose to pay
| with attention, so that's where creators are being pulled
| to. But that doesn't mean that you're forced to consume
| it.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| In practical terms there isn't an alternative. Sure there
| are websites without ads, but they won't tell me about
| what happens in my community. Sure, I could go to the
| town hall and watch sessions, but it's not practical.
|
| Also: Even alternatives to YouTube will end up in the ad
| market. Just see the different streaming services where
| one already pays and who are rolling out ads. And well,
| YouTube still is the central place with all the videos.
| The only choice I have is using an ad blocker, which
| could be seen as amoral.
| Nemi wrote:
| I hate ads as much as anyone (full disclosure, I use an
| ad blocker), but with all due respect, the reason there
| is no "practical" alternative to a service displaying ads
| is - someone has to pay for it. And before you say "I am
| paying or I am willing to pay", it often costs more than
| you are willing to pay to run these services.
|
| When you say it is "not practical" to go to the town
| hall, what you are really saying is "my time is valuable
| and I want someone else to expend their valuable time
| recording that information and disseminating it to me at
| low or no cost to me". Believe me, I understand the
| desire. But if we were all honest, someone has to pay for
| this and capitalism has decided that this is the "best"
| way to do that.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Of course, but there are other ways to finance the news
| site. But ads are easy and lucrative, thus nobody (with
| exceptions) bothers to implement them. It's even worse: I
| pay for my local newspaper subscription and they still
| serve tracking ads.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| It is taken without consent if you leave your house or
| use public transport, or use certain private sector
| services that are de facto required to live a normal
| life.
| luckylion wrote:
| With that line of thought we'd quickly get into very
| strange territory. You can't use public transport without
| either standing or sitting on their chairs, even though
| you might prefer different chairs. Are they now forcing
| you to use their services without your consent?
| Timon3 wrote:
| You said it yourself - you _literally can 't_ use public
| transport without either standing or sitting on their
| chairs. It's a physical limitation. But it's entirely
| possible to use public transport without having ads
| shoved into your face. It's even the default! If people
| didn't put up ads in/around public transport, you _could_
| use public transport without seeing any.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| I think the difference here is people don't really know
| what they're giving up psychologically.
|
| When you're manipulating someone to choose against their
| best interests, it's happening on an unconscious level
| and freedom of choice is completely removed from the
| picture. In these types of cases, no I don't believe
| there is consent involved.
| luckylion wrote:
| Is that limited to ads? If someone buys a car because it
| looks sporty and powerful which speaks to his
| subconscious, was he not manipulated? Was he able to give
| consent to trade money for that car?
|
| I understand where you're coming from, but psychological
| manipulation is everywhere and committed by everyone all
| the time and defining its use as voiding consent seems
| very problematic.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| If I go play chess against a rando at a park and lose, I
| lost.
|
| If I go play chess against someone who spent 150,000
| human years studying how to beat me, to say 'well, it was
| all up to your mental strength, same as it's always been
| forever, and you just weren't strong enough' is BS.
|
| In the last 40 years (which equate to 80 billion human
| years of output) there has been hundreds of thousands if
| not millions of human years of effort put into tearing
| down peoples' barriers, implanting ideas, etc. This isn't
| 1960 madmen advertising, this is something different from
| all of human history. Never before have hundreds of
| thousands to millions of human years been dedicated to
| manipulating humans in such a continuous, scientifically
| approached way and on such ever present/connected
| platforms with the synchronization of
| message/manipulation across contexts/mediums.
|
| Edit: Changed from using 'man years' to 'human years'.
| camgunz wrote:
| Would you support a regulation that all ads must offer a
| paid opt out?
| luckylion wrote:
| How is the price determined?
| camgunz wrote:
| Fairly, as in if everyone opted out the amount of money
| the platform made is unchanged.
| luckylion wrote:
| I believe that would be very difficult, it would likely
| create some additional interesting cases (are adblockers
| now fraud?), I'd be somewhat concerned of forcing that
| upon companies (would benefit larger companies by making
| the barrier to entry higher), but I don't see it causing
| problems at the same scale of banning all advertising.
| chongli wrote:
| _Is it taken without consent?_
|
| There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by
| advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.
|
| These advertisers could choose to put up paywalls but
| that would harm their search rankings, so they don't.
| Instead, they play games with cloaking [1] and other SEO
| techniques in order to bypass the user's wishes and show
| them ads (or even ads + cloaked paywalls).
|
| At least YouTube offers a paid premium service which
| remains ad-free.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking
| luckylion wrote:
| > There's no clearer lack of consent than attempts by
| advertisers to circumvent, block, or ban ad-blockers.
|
| There is consent (otherwise you wouldn't visit the
| website in the first place), users with adblock are just
| trying to minimize their exposure. Totally reasonable (I
| do it too), but nobody is forcing them.
|
| That may be true for e.g. a malicious software on your
| computer that force-redirects your regular browsing
| activity to some evil site, but that's not what we're
| discussing.
| chongli wrote:
| _There is consent (otherwise you wouldn 't visit the
| website in the first place)_
|
| Clicking a link is not consent. I have no idea what I am
| going to see until I reach the website. My browser has
| rendered the website and executed their JavaScript long
| before I've had any chance to even process what I'm
| seeing, let alone consent to it.
|
| Clicking a link is equivalent to walking into a tattoo
| parlour. We don't infer that I consent to receiving a
| tattoo just by walking through the doorway. Stealing my
| attention with ads is less extreme of an intrusion onto
| my person than a tattoo, obviously, but it is still an
| intrusion.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| Replace attention for kidneys. Or not being killed with
| swords. See how you argument works out.
|
| Just because something is highly sought after e.g.
| kidneys and protection from violence doesn't mean we
| should commoditize it. See American health care. Some
| resources are inflexible and allow infinite rent seeking
| opportunities.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| Just tax the hell out of it, to pay for the environmental
| damages.
| camgunz wrote:
| Plutonium is scarce. Demand for that plutonium is
| endless. Scarcity + demand creates a natural market by
| default, meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to
| disrupt it entirely (vs just regulating with guardrails).
| Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism usually
| ends up worse than any downsides of the decentralized
| market regulation of that scarcity. Instead of something
| that attempts to land on fairness (even if imperfect), no
| market at all guarantees unfairness. The black market
| puts a price on the scarce commodity of plutonium in
| broad strokes, and it not always, but generally trends
| toward making the highest purity plutonium for both the
| bombed and bomber get used over lower purity plutonium in
| any given situation (because those are the ones who are
| winning the nuclear war with said plutonium). I know,
| please respond with all of your "all these times it
| didn't work like that!" throw-the-baby out-with-the-
| bathwater Anecdotes. Like all markets, we should regulate
| plutonium to ensure it doesn't get out of control. But to
| ban it outright would require an extreme policing of all
| weapons at all levels of society. Hence why this is a
| non-serious, silly idea.
| pembrook wrote:
| Plutonium is scarce, but demand for it is even more
| scarce. Hence why most of the plutonium that exists is
| untapped. It's not even a functioning market because of
| this, it requires governments to prop up its production.
|
| Plutonium is one of the most niche things ever. All
| humans and businesses desire human attention, whereas
| virtually nobody desires plutonium.
|
| The amount of people who can do anything with it amounts
| to likely 0.000001% of the population.
|
| This is not a good rebuttal.
| camgunz wrote:
| Ugh, the point is that your argument "if there's a market
| for something there's no point banning it" is special
| pleading for advertising. If you put other powerful
| things in there (plutonium, human organs) you quickly see
| this. But, sure, let's do it the boring way.
|
| > Human attention is scarce.
|
| Compared to what? Do you mean limited, highly desired, or
| what? Also I'd say there's 8 billion human attentions.
| That doesn't sound scarce to me.
|
| > Demand for that attention is endless.
|
| "Endless"? Surely not. What if I have it all?
|
| > Scarcity + demand creates a natural market by default
|
| Doesn't this mean almost everything we care about is a
| market? The supply of almost everything (actually
| everything?) is limited, qed right?
|
| > meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to disrupt
| it entirely (vs just regulating with guardrails).
|
| I don't think this means anything. What's an example of
| using brutal authoritarianism to disrupt other
| markets?Cocaine? Human organs?
|
| > Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism
| usually ends up worse than any downsides of the
| decentralized market regulation of that scarcity.
|
| Again if there are any concrete examples I would imagine
| most people would agree that stuff should be banned.
|
| > Instead of something that attempts to land on fairness
| (even if imperfect), no market at all guarantees
| unfairness.
|
| Wait I thought scarcity + demand poofs a market, how can
| there be scarcity + demand and no market? Isn't this the
| foundation of your argument?
|
| > Advertising puts a price on the scarce commodity of
| attention in broad strokes,
|
| The strokes are way too broad. If you're a magazine or a
| road sign, you're selling the slice of attention you're
| getting, which isn't anywhere near the whole attention
| market. Even if you're something like FB or TikTok,
| you're max getting like 70% of someone's attention. But
| then is influencer placement more effective than movie
| product placement? What about an interstitial ad? Blah
| blah blah. What happens when people are offline, like
| making breakfast or reading a book (things lots of people
| still do, believe it or not). This is a market in such a
| loose sense it loses meaning, but the worst part is the
| people who own attention aren't getting paid! At least in
| a human organ market I get cash for my kidneys. Where's
| the site I can go to where I just watch ads and rack up
| sweet cheddar?
|
| > and it not always, but generally trends toward making
| the highest value messages for both the audience and
| advertiser get seen over lower value messages in any
| given situation (because those are the ones that can
| afford the market clearing price on said advertising).
|
| "Value" for who? You've done no work to establish the
| value of advertising to the audience. Again, less of a
| market and more of a sheep shearing operation.
|
| > But to ban it outright would require an extreme
| policing of all speech at all levels of society.
|
| You might be surprised to learn there's a pretty rich
| diversity of advertising bans. Here in The Hague we ban
| ads for meat and fossil fuels. Things are still OK!
| Shacklz wrote:
| > Out of all of HN's biases, the violent hatred of
| advertising is by far one of the most misguided.
|
| Interesting, I perceive it exactly the other way around.
| I'm surprised this thread is as high up as it is, usually
| as per my perception, anti-advertisement sentiment gets
| shot down hard, presumably because a large part of the
| HN-crowd works for companies like google or facebook
| which rely on ads as a business model, or start-ups whose
| products are only used because users were shown ads for
| them.
|
| My take: The human mind is hackable; it's just too easy
| and efficient to appeal to our emotions and most basic
| instincts. And while it was mostly fine to ignore it
| while it was "only" increasing consumerism, we currently
| see what happens when the same is applied to elections,
| with predictably terrible outcomes.
|
| Your stance is still the old HN stance; the market
| actually works, any change that would impact the status
| quo is neither welcome nor needed, etc. etc. - this was
| the gospel for at least a decade, but we're finally
| awakening to the fact that hey, maybe this is actually
| bad, even if it made loads of money for many of us. Maybe
| it led us to the awful situation we're currently in, with
| big, ad-based monopolies, an absolute clownshow in the
| highest of offices and CEOs of said monopolies playing
| the lackeys.
|
| Most big social developments in human history were non-
| serious and silly to many people before they actually
| happened.
| Benjammer wrote:
| I think the only reason that demand is endless is due to
| how profitable it is to sell that attention to
| advertisers...
| trinsic2 wrote:
| > Hence why this is a non-serious, silly idea.
|
| I don't know if I go that far. I can see arguments for
| both sides of the issue. And at the same time, I know it
| would be impossible to do, but I could see that not
| having advertising would fix a lot of problems in our
| society. And yes, advertising is a broad term. Maybe we
| have clear rules around what's advertising and what's
| propaganda.
| TFYS wrote:
| > generally trends toward making the highest value
| messages for both the audience and advertiser get seen
| over lower value messages in any given situation (because
| those are the ones that can afford the market clearing
| price on said advertising).
|
| This is true, but only for the set of messages that
| produce value that can be captured by the advertiser.
| This set is a small subset of messages that produce
| value. For example, a message about the benefits of
| excercise/socializing/climate action would produce a lot
| of value, but not in a form that any single advertiser
| can capture. So a lot of high value messages don't get
| produced in the current system, and might have a better
| chance in a more "natural" attention economy.
|
| Advertising also increases the value of a product, so the
| value of things whose value can be captured by
| advertisers will be inflated when compared to their value
| in an environment without advertising.
| bccdee wrote:
| > natural market by default, meaning you must use brutal
| authoritarianism to disrupt it entirely
|
| Ok? If that's how we define "brutal authoritarianism," I
| guess I'm a brutal authoritarian. There's a natural
| market for mob hitmen (scarce + in-demand)--are you
| opposed to a "brutal authoritarian" crackdown on those
| too?
|
| > Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism
| usually ends up worse than any downsides of the
| decentralized market regulation of that scarcity.
|
| Citation very much needed. Suppliers of lead paint,
| asbestos, ozone-destroying aerosols, contaminated
| foodstuffs, etc. did not regulate themselves in a
| decentralized manner. In fact, take virtually any toxic
| contaminant or hazardous product and you'll usually find
| that the market colluded to cover up evidence of harm,
| rather than "self-regulating."
|
| > generally trends toward making the highest value
| messages for both the audience and advertiser
|
| Absolutely not. Consumers do not exert demand for certain
| types of ads in preference to others. There's no
| mechanism for ads to converge toward high audience value.
| It's advertiser value that is optimized for, often to the
| detriment of consumers (e.g. advertisements for
| profitable scams, which have negative value).
|
| Even if you want to argue that advertisements inform
| consumers to _some_ extent, that 's probably outweighed
| by the extent that they misinform consumers. Consider
| infomercial products: Regular kitchen knives don't need
| an advertisement because demand is inelastic. If you're
| cooking, you need a knife; nobody has to promote the idea
| of knives. But the "slap-chop" is a product with elastic
| demand, and thus the marginal value of advertising is
| much greater for them. Hence, they can afford to buy up
| huge amounts of ad space to drum up demand for an
| essentially worthless product. The advertising ecosystem
| has perverse incentive to promote scams.
|
| > But to ban it outright would require an extreme
| policing of all speech at all levels of society.
|
| There are a lot of noxious and socially destructive
| things which are not practical to ban.
| pembrook wrote:
| You've taken small snippets of my text and stood them up
| as lone straw-men to argue against, instead of arguing
| against my actual premise.
|
| No, murder is not comparable to advertising. And no, not
| once did I ever say the phrase "self-regulating" nor did
| I argue against regulation of advertising.
|
| Your fundamental belief (and the prevailing view on HN)
| that advertising is a scam and intended to "misinform" is
| incorrect. Apparently I need to say this again because
| it's hard to grasp the concept of nuance--Are some
| advertisements scams? Absolutely. The market is not
| perfectly efficient, but again, markets _trend in the
| direction of efficiency over long periods._
|
| Ultimately, the vast majority of advertisements you see
| are for the products that are the most desired by people,
| _hence why they can profitably continue advertising over
| time._
|
| Just because you aren't interested in the product,
| doesn't mean it's a scam . Enough people in the audience
| of whatever media you consume think otherwise, hence why
| the company is advertising there. Again, there are
| absolutely stupid companies wasting money on stupid ads,
| but they tend to get outcompeted by the smarter ones. I
| get it though, giving people you believe are less
| intelligent than you the freedom to make decisions is
| frustrating.
|
| Even in your example of the slap-chop, which you say is a
| "worthless product," funny enough, I literally just used
| a similar product yesterday to dice a large amount of
| onions quickly. Guess I'm stupid and I need an
| authoritarian like you to tell me a smarter way to live.
|
| Alternatively though, the idea that knife makers don't
| promote their products is just hilarious to me. The
| market for kitchen knives is _extremely_ competitive and
| just because the advertising doesn 't take the form of a
| 30 second TV spot from the 1990s doesn't mean they just
| throw their products on the market with zero promotion.
| How do you think certain brands even appear on the
| shelves of the stores you shop in? You're gonna hate this
| too...turns out shelf space is scarce so shelf space is a
| market as well, and it's more of an economic calculation
| than one of technical passion. Oh no not again!
| hammock wrote:
| > Suppliers of lead paint, asbestos, ozone-destroying
| aerosols, contaminated foodstuffs, etc.
|
| Not sure those are good examples, because none of them
| were "regulated" or banned until there was already a
| decent alternative available. What is the alternative to
| advertising, for capturing human attention?
| bccdee wrote:
| > What is the alternative to advertising, for capturing
| human attention?
|
| Unsponsored product reviews, I suppose. I'm not a
| proponent of a complete ban on advertising--I just find
| the argument being made in favour of deregulation to be
| deeply silly.
|
| > Not sure those are good examples, because none of them
| were "regulated" or banned until there was already a
| decent alternative available.
|
| The argument I'm responding to there is, "Disrupting
| natural markets with authoritarianism usually ends up
| worse than any downsides of the decentralized market
| regulation of that scarcity." There's no mention there of
| the availability of alternatives--that's not the point
| being made.
| const_cast wrote:
| > Human attention is scarce. Demand for that attention is
| endless. Scarcity + demand creates a natural market by
| default, meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to
| disrupt it entirely
|
| This logic is just bad, plain and simple. You know what
| else has a high demand? Drugs.
|
| So I guess fuck it, right? Sell heroin in Walmart, who
| cares. It's a "natural market". Of course people want to
| shoot up, it feels fucking amazing and humans are hard-
| wired to do shit that makes them feel good.
|
| So let's just give up and do nothing. Yeah, in fact go
| ahead and advertise heroin on TVs. Yeah, go ahead and
| give it to infants too, let's get them young. After all,
| it's a natural market or something.
|
| Please, I am begging you, stop bending over so severely
| for "markets". Sit back, and think about consequences.
|
| If something ONLY HARMS PEOPLE, why are we doing it?
| Seriously, if everyone is a loser then why are we here?
| We don't have to make life hell just because capitalism
| would like it! That's a choice!
| asdf6969 wrote:
| > Advertising puts a price on the scarce commodity of
| attention
|
| Why should I be allowed to sell my attention any more
| than I can sell my own kidneys? It's even worse because I
| let other people sell my attention for me and get nothing
| back. What point are you trying to make? The market for
| manipulating my behaviour shouldn't exist at all so I
| really don't care how efficient it is
|
| > the highest value messages for both the audience..
|
| Obviously not. If this was true then people would pay to
| see more ads and everyone knows that doesn't happen
| marssaxman wrote:
| There are forms of advertising which are consensual -
| someone who buys a copy of Vogue presumably does so
| because they _want_ to see the products being advertised
| - but the advertising I would ban is that which responds
| to the demand for attention by flat-out _stealing_ it. If
| it 's not consensual, it should not be legal.
|
| > you must use brutal authoritarianism to disrupt it
| entirely
|
| I'm not usually a fan of brutal authoritarianism, but
| you're making it sound pretty good.
| grandempire wrote:
| One reason why the definition is more important when it
| comes to outlawing behavior is that when you get it wrong
| you are actually preventing people from doing something
| that is important and valuable to them.
|
| Ironically this is something lawyers and judges would pick
| up on immediately. You need an underlying principle of harm
| that can be applied consistently.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > you are actually preventing people from doing something
| that is important and valuable to them.
|
| There are many things individuals will consider
| "important and valuable to them" that are harmful to
| others. We prevent individuals from harming others for
| their own self-gain because that's what societies do.
| bccdee wrote:
| This is an argument against people having rights at all.
| "Oh, you think you're entitled to X? Well, in certain
| scenarios, X might cause harm. You might use free speech
| to advocate for something bad, or leverage your immunity
| to unjust search & seizure to conceal evidence of a
| crime."
|
| Consider that the author considers propaganda to be a
| form of advertising, and suggests we ban propaganda.
| Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential
| sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just
| publishing news with a strong political slant. This anti-
| propaganda law effectively would have to make it illegal
| to publish political opinion pieces. That would be
| absurdly draconian.
|
| For the record, I'm strongly anti-advertising, but a
| complete ban on advertisement would be impossible to
| construct because you can't draw a sharp line between ads
| and free expression.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most
| influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're
| just publishing news with a strong political slant.
|
| Actually (and hilariously) Fox News according to their
| own court filings _do not publish news,_ they are an
| entertainment product.
|
| And I say ironically because that's exactly the mechanism
| people are clamoring for in this discussion: it's the
| courts. Lawyers argue and courts eventually decide
| definitions all the time, because it's highly impractical
| to belabor and endlessly debate passing new laws because
| we don't have ironclad definitions in them beforehand.
|
| If you want my humble opinion, in a legal/ban sense, I
| would define advertising as:
|
| > Communicative material that is placed strategically by
| publishers or media for a price/by way of other agreement
| to drive awareness of products or services with the
| intent to generate attention and sales of said products
| or services.
| whacko_quacko wrote:
| Kudos for providing a somewhat sensible definition. This
| helps by addressing the free speech issues (at least to
| an extent^[1]), but I think there are other problems as
| well.
|
| The economical fallout would be extensive. Google's and
| Meta's business model (and that of many others) would
| basically disappear overnight. While I'm not a fan of
| either, and think there should be much stricter
| regulation for (very large) tech-companies, this would
| make financing of a lot of important products infeasible.
| But not just in tech. Think about product placement in
| movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc.
| Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money?
|
| Also, it would make entering markets much harder, if
| you're not a household name already. If I read your
| definition correctly, you couldn't even give a
| complimentary account for your SaaS product to a reviewer
| ("by way of other agreement") to enable them to test your
| software (and hopefully write favorably about it if
| they're convinced). This would definitely hurt consumers.
|
| I think you should be allowed to try to change minds. If
| anything, we should outlaw the massive tracking effort
| involved in advertising.
|
| [1]: What about a political party publishing a newspaper
| and paying their staff? Is that okay? I could construct
| more examples, and life is even messier. On the other
| hand, I have to admit, that the focus on the payment
| aspect makes this much more palatable to me.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > The economical fallout would be extensive.
|
| There was likely economic fallout many would call
| extensive when we mandated equal wages for minorities and
| an end to child labor, and yet businesses soldier on.
| Turns out, if you're selling products people need,
| momentary disruptions and changing market conditions
| generally don't mean you suddenly cannot conduct
| business.
|
| > Think about product placement in movies or television,
| banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that?
| The state? With whose money?
|
| One of sport fans biggest complaints is the overwhelming
| number of ads and the overbearing, bloated organizations
| behind pro tier sports. It seems like bankrupting a lot
| of them and letting teams return to public goods funded
| by municipalities would be a huge step forward into
| preserving sports as a social event, not a profit seeking
| venture.
|
| And it's not like pro sports aren't already benefitting
| from taxpayers left and right. We could just get rid of
| the money men up top and let things settle where they
| may. Sure we may not get blockbuster sports events
| anymore, but maybe more people could then afford to
| actually attend?
|
| > This would definitely hurt consumers.
|
| Consumers LOATHE SaaS. They would cheer for it to be
| killed off.
|
| > What about a political party publishing a newspaper and
| paying their staff?
|
| I don't see how that would run afoul of my definition?
| foobarchu wrote:
| > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most
| influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're
| just publishing news with a strong political slant.
|
| That's not advertising by any standard, unless they're
| being paid by someone to do it (whether they currently
| are or not is irrelevant). Just because someone can
| benefit doesn't make it advertising/propaganda, it's
| about the whether the funding comes from someone who
| benefits from the particular content.
|
| As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other
| YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests.
| That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who
| make those product are sponsoring them.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| > _As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other
| YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests.
| That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who
| make those product are sponsoring them._
|
| Did the pay full retail price for the product or get a
| discount?
|
| Did they get the product at release or in advance?
|
| Did they get access to detailed specs or the people who
| built it?
|
| Did they give feedback that went into the product?
|
| Did they get a company/lab/event visit and some swag?
|
| Did they get preferential access for the next product?
|
| "Sponsoring" is just the most visible, clearly disclosed
| way to advertise in those. But fundamentally, getting and
| preserving access is immensely valuable and there may not
| be funds moving between the two groups.
|
| None of us are completely unbiased. Getting those things
| disclosed would be a great improvement.
| grandempire wrote:
| This is just benevolent authoritarianism (the most common
| form of government worldwide and historically).
| camgunz wrote:
| This law is no different than any other prohibition. It's
| not like we have to go back to the legal lab to figure
| out precisely what advertising is because, unlike things
| with clear definitions everyone knows like fraud,
| discrimination, or defamation, advertising is
| particularly nebulous.
| grandempire wrote:
| Did you see which comment this is in reply to? It's about
| your general description of people in tech to be hesitant
| and skeptical when it comes to banning things.
| camgunz wrote:
| I'm confused by your comment, the posts are both mine?
| Even if I take what I think is the most charitable
| version of your "argument", which I think is "tech thinks
| things should by default exist and be permissible unless
| they pass an extremely stringent test", no pro-
| advertising person here is trying to find the outlines of
| what that test might be. They're all running right to
| "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech
| without collapsing civilization", which is absurd.
| grandempire wrote:
| > "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of
| money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know
| what X is
|
| You are describing the ability of good engineers to deal
| with vague and ill defined problems.
|
| > "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and
| therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's
| ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X
| anyway..
|
| Your assumption is that the challenge or concern about
| regulation is the difficulty of dealing with vagueness.
| As I pointed out, this is not the case, but the hesitancy
| and destructive power of imposing your will on others.
|
| > It's so transparent to me now
|
| Hope I cleared up the confusion.
|
| > "there's no way to separate advertising from other
| speech without collapsing civilization"
|
| I am not - and did not make the claim. I am explaining
| why you are seeing engineers care more about vagueness in
| one context than another.
|
| I think a judge would also demand a consistent principle
| and definition to guide regulation.
| camgunz wrote:
| Someone with your eye for detail would probably be
| embarrassed to learn that while their entire argument
| rests on me referring to "engineers" I never wrote the
| word once.
|
| It seems like you're one of those HN people who thinks
| they'll convince people scrolling by with petty semantic
| arguments and snark. Maybe that's true! But it doesn't
| work on me. For example, if you're gonna make a claim
| like "I think a judge would also demand a consistent
| principle and definition to guide regulation", I'd want
| to see evidence that deals with the fact that the courts
| have come up with their own standards for their own
| review (rational basis, strict scrutiny) and indeed have
| formulated their own standards for evaluating legislation
| entirely on their own (undue burden, imminent lawless
| action, etc). From your comments in this thread, I'd
| guess you don't know anything about laws, legislation,
| judicial review, and the like. But hey, don't let that
| stop you from warning about the dangers of "destructive
| power of imposing your will on others".
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| I don't claim to know the answer here, but I hope you can
| see some irony in saying:
|
| > As I pointed out, this is not the case, but the
| hesitancy and destructive power of imposing your will on
| others.
|
| When the thing up for discussion is the hacking of our
| psyche to impose a will - ads - onto others, at a scale
| and persistence hereto unimaginable by the worst tyrants
| in history.
| cdecl wrote:
| The difference is that often, particular things are more
| concretely defined. A ban on advertising might be so
| onerous you wouldn't even be able to 'advertise' your FOSS
| projects on HN.
|
| In what way could you learn about novel commercial things
| in the absence of advertising? Word of mouth alone?
| rglullis wrote:
| > How do you even define advertising?
|
| You don't define "advertising". You look for things that
| advertisers do and see if they can be made illegal or
| unprofitable.
|
| Formula 1 cars used to have displays for tobacco products. At
| one point, the law in Europe started saying "you can not do
| that", so tobacco advertisements disappeared.
| fmbb wrote:
| > you are self-imposing a restriction that will give other
| nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-term
| sovereignty.
|
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
|
| What is your evidence that there is any economic advantage at
| all to have unregulated advertising?
|
| I'm fairly sure advertising is regulated in all sovereign
| states. And I am also quite certain that the jurisdictions in
| which gambling advertisement is illegal fare better
| economically than those in which it is illegal. It only makes
| sense: gambling is not productive, the less of it you have
| the better your population spend their money on productive
| things, the more advertising you have the more people spend
| on gambling (otherwise what is the point of advertising?), if
| you forbid gamling advertising there will be less gambling
| advertising (if not, what is your complaint even?).
|
| Nothing about this statement of yours makes sense.
| caseyy wrote:
| > How do you even define advertising?
|
| Almost everyone can tell when they're being advertised to.
| And almost everyone can tell when they advertise.
| Effectiveness of such bans would depend on enforcement, the
| definition is clear enough.
| halgir wrote:
| > the definition is clear enough.
|
| It really isn't though. There's so many different forms
| that we can't reduce it to "I know it when I see it"
| territory and depend on case-by-case enforcement.
|
| Do we ban outdoor billboards? Product placement? Content
| marketing? Public relations? Sponsor logos on sports
| uniforms? Brand logos on retail clothing? Mailing lists?
|
| I do love the idea, but doubt its feasibility.
| Implementation would have to be meticulous, and I expect
| the advertising industry would always be one step ahead in
| an endless race of interpretation. We can still try to
| curtail the most disruptive forms though, we don't have to
| destroy all advertising at once to make a positive
| difference.
| caseyy wrote:
| I'd say don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.
| Banning 80% of existing advertisement practices would
| practically achieve all the goals bans strive for.
| shruggedatlas wrote:
| Outdoor billboards, product placement, sponsor logos on
| sports uniforms - yes
|
| Content marketing, public relations, mailing lists - no
|
| "we don't have to destroy all advertising at once to make
| a positive difference"
| LightBug1 wrote:
| No public facing advertising. At all.
|
| No sponsored advertising. At all.
|
| If advertising "skirts through the loopholes", fine - at
| least we'll recognise it as underground (like darknet now).
| The liberal version, I don't even understand how you got
| there so won't comment. That was wild.
|
| And you seem to ignore the issue the OP mentions about not
| being able to unilaterally disarm.
|
| It's easy if you try. But you won't try ... what a shame.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Ban farmer's markets
| dismalpedigree wrote:
| How do farmer's markets run afoul of this proposal?
| Perhaps there is advertising by the market to tell people
| to come, that can be eliminated. Once you are at the
| market there are only individual booths advertising their
| wares, which is fine because its not a 3rd party.
| ajuc wrote:
| There was almost no advertising in my country when I was 7. I
| live in Poland and till 1989 it was communist puppet state of
| USSR (not through our choice, obviously, so the moment we
| could - we noped out of it).
|
| There was no point advertising because there was no
| competition, all the companies were nationalized and no
| matter how well or badly they did - their employees earned
| the same. If you persuaded people to buy your washing powder
| instead of the other available washing powder - that just
| means the queues for your washing powder will be longer.
|
| There was A LOT of communist and anti western propaganda tho.
| But no advertising is perfectly possible.
| simne wrote:
| I live in Ukraine, and we still suffer from soviet
| limitations on advertisement and entrepreneurs. Every time
| when govt and parliament need to make some urgent reform,
| nobody could predict, what will really happen - as they
| could just raise taxes, or deform some industry with some
| unreal regulations, and only in few cases implement some
| adequate, for example synchronize with EU regulations.
|
| For example, for banks appear problem, people avoid to pay
| credits, so need some enforcement - powers approved
| confiscation of property to pay credit, but with exceptions
| of unprotected people, so bank cannot confiscate from
| pensioners, when child registered in property, and few
| others, so literally huge percent of citizens now protected
| from banks, and this new law is step back, not progress.
| kmacdough wrote:
| > It's impossible. How do you even define advertising?
|
| Seems you're insistent on letting the perfect be the enemy of
| the good. This is precisely why judges exist. It would not be
| difficult to define Ads well enough to cover 99% of current
| advertising. Sure there will be gray areas. Advertisers will
| adapt. But it would make it profoundly more expensive,
| difficult and risky.
|
| I'm not sure I understand a concrete economic argument other
| than "anything which makes it harder for businesses to be
| wildly profitable off minimal value hurts the economy". But
| that only really holds of you define the economy by things
| like GDP, which really just capture how wildly profitable
| companies are and have almost no bearing on quality of life
| for the people; in other words, the argument is circular.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| A sign on the front of a store is advertising. If we ban
| these how will you even know what stores there are
| downtown?
| dismalpedigree wrote:
| The author specifically mentioned paid 3rd party. So an
| individual/business can "advertise" all they want for
| their services, but paying other entities to "speak" for
| them is not allowed. Yes, i can find all kinds of
| loopholes too. Thats what judges are for.
| Nemi wrote:
| I'll play.
|
| Assume paying for others to advertise for you is illegal.
| What if I hire a large staff to go out and sing the
| praises of my company? Walking downtown shouting to the
| rooftops. That is not advertising, right?
|
| What about them wearing a sign so they don't have to
| shout? Driving with a sign on a car?
|
| Ok, now suppose some strapping young individual creates a
| service that pays websites to carve out a little div on
| their site that will display these employees songs of
| love? This strapping young individual now sells this
| service to companies wishing to more easily get the word
| out to more people. Is this advertising? But I am not
| paying someone to make the ad, my employees are doing
| that.
|
| How is this different than my company posting on
| facebook? Where is the line?
|
| I am not an advertising apologist. I hate ads with the
| power of a thousand suns. I use an ad blocker. But this
| idea of making advertising illegal is just a non-starter.
| It goes against the basic tenants of freedom of speech.
| deinonychus wrote:
| I haven't thought hard about this, but I think the
| solution relies on some definition of a 'platform' or a
| similar idea. I think most people could see a difference
| between the carsigns and the websongs, where the latter
| look like ads because they're on someone else's platform.
|
| I think we can narrow down on weird cases in between the
| carsigns and the websongs. Maybe the line gets muddier if
| the employees aren't driving their own cars with signs,
| or if those employees are hired to do nothing but drive,
| or if they're not even employees and they're Uber drivers
| but for driving signs... To me, that last one sounds like
| a platform which exists for nothing but advertising.
| dahart wrote:
| > this idea of making advertising illegal is just a non-
| starter. It goes against the basic tenants of freedom of
| speech.
|
| FWIW, that's not entirely accurate. The tenets of free
| speech include a long list of exceptions. In the US,
| commercial speech and specifically advertisements do not
| necessarily have free speech protections, by design,
| especially when it comes to false advertising, misleading
| advertising, and anything else ads might have that is on
| the list of exceptions including IP, defamation, and
| false statements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St
| ates_free_speech_exce...
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| A lot of the Supreme Courts decisions on commercial
| speech are obviously wrong and will be overturned sooner
| or later.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| Eh, even if you exclude any potential side effects like that
| I don't see it being workable. I believe advertising as done
| today is _mostly_ a zero sum game, but without any
| advertising at all, it's going to be _really_ hard to find
| out about stuff!
| grandempire wrote:
| I don't think that's the issue. Whatever advertising is, it's
| clearly been industrialized by technology in ways that
|
| a) did not exist 100 years ago
|
| b) can be limited in effectiveness by removing that
| technology
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you
| define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through
| the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an
| unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be
| selectively enforced against political enemies.
|
| This is just the perfect solution fallacy.
|
| Nobody in this conversation thinks there's a set of laws that
| would work perfectly to prevent all advertising. That doesn't
| mean it can't be a hell of a lot better than it is. Playing
| whack-a-mole with loopholes and making careful regulations to
| avoid inhibiting human rights is still a huge improvement
| over letting corporations trample human rights at will.
| lambda wrote:
| In Vermont, we have banned outdoor advertising (billboards)
| for over 50 years with no such issues.
|
| It's hilarious that you think that advertising is actually
| necessary for economic prosperity. If anything, it's probably
| a net drain on it.
| swayvil wrote:
| Advertising is a nuance of action in the informational world
| the way combat is a nuance of action in the physical world.
|
| We can draw the line between an aggressive blow and a firm
| handshake. We can distinguish that.
|
| We will figure out how to distinguish manipulatory
| mindfucking from regular conversation too.
| Super_Jambo wrote:
| For the same reason weights and measures legislation is of
| course impossible.
|
| This is why every time you go to the shops you have to carry
| your own standard weights and balance scale! The idea that
| society could regulate the weight and volume of every product
| in every shop is simply preposterous!
| tshaddox wrote:
| It's impossible to live in a world without murder, and murder
| is difficult to precisely define and identify, and yet
| neither of those are good reasons to oppose making murder
| illegal.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I can 't because a world with magic and world peace is
| more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you
| even define advertising?_
|
| No ads in TV programming. No product placement in movies. No
| billboards. No subway or bus station advertising posters. No
| paid recommending of specific products. No promotional
| material for products - nothing with fictional elements. No
| web ads. No sponsored links. No social media ads. No paid
| reviews.
|
| (you could still do some of those covertly, with "under the
| table" money, but then if you caught you get fined or go to
| jail)
|
| No tracking consuming preferences of any kind, not even if
| you have an online store. Just a database of past purchases
| on your own store - and using them for profiling via ML
| should be illegal too.
|
| If people want to find out about a product, they can see it
| on your company's website (seeking it directly), or get a
| leaflet from you. In either case no dramatized / finctional /
| aspirational images or video should be shown.
|
| > _And in all cases, you are self-imposing a restriction that
| will give other nations an economic advantage and
| jeopardizing long-term sovereignty._
|
| You're removing cancer.
| jagraff wrote:
| Are products allowed to have labels? Am I allowed to tell
| my friends I like a product? What if I put a video on
| youtube and accidentally include a brand name in it?
| const_cast wrote:
| This is a classic case of perfect being the enemy of good.
|
| We don't need to 1984 listen to every conversation for any
| hints at product endorsement. We can start with obvious
| things - for example, prohibiting a company from spending
| money on marketing. Banning ads on the air, whatever.
|
| There's levels to this. There's really evil slot machine
| marketing. You know, try to get people addicted to your
| social media and use that addiction as a way to generate
| profit. And then there's not so bad marketing. Like my friend
| telling me he likes his new pair of pants.
| brookst wrote:
| I think you'd do better banning the _sale_ of advertising
| than the purchase.
|
| Demand-side is a mess and hard to draw the line. It's not a
| perfect / good thing, it's a feasibility thing.
| programjames wrote:
| Well, I think the point is your friend can still tell you
| he likes his new pair of pants, he just can't be a paid
| actor.
| cwmoore wrote:
| "GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY" with a
| dopamine megaphone in your bedroom"
| Sloowms wrote:
| It's impossible, that's why you still see all those cigarette
| advertisements everywhere.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Probation only moves the activities underground. Not focusing
| on ad tech specifically but removing all advertising would mean
| finding other ways to get your message out which is
| advertising. The only way to stop it is to stop communication
| in form and function.
|
| Limiting certain types of advertising or changing tax codes to
| not allow dedicating expensive could shape it in a way that
| meshes with society.
|
| Trying to rein in the abuses you saw in the adtech world starts
| with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft being dissolved.
| SllX wrote:
| Google and Facebook sure, you could even make the argument
| that their non-adtech businesses would be collateral damage,
| but Amazon and Microsoft have substantial non-advertising
| related businesses. I'm curious why you lumped them in?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Amazon makes a lot from Amazon ads in their own search
| results. Also Amazon prime. Microsoft from bing / Windows
| ads. Just in news/search they made over 10 billion.
| Microsoft / Amazon most the bulk of their money in the
| cloud.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > Probation only moves the activities underground.
|
| That implies that people want ads and they're going to be
| consuming underground ads from their ad dealers. Which
| actually already impinges on advertising because advertising
| doesn't want to be secret, advertising wants to be as visible
| or popular as possible. Advertising is inherently easier to
| regulate because of this.
| gavmor wrote:
| [content creators] want ads and they're going to be
| consuming underground ads from their ad dealers. Examples:
| AudioGO, PodcastOne, Acast.
| threatofrain wrote:
| And advertisers want content creators for... exposure.
| Which makes you visible to enforcement. All sides of the
| market must endeavor to keep the speakeasy a secret,
| including those that consume the ads at the end.
| QuantumGood wrote:
| Propaganda does not need advertising to disseminate itself,
| particularly not in 2025. There are multiple channels. Limiting
| one--advertising--just moves the flow to other channels.
| jkhdigital wrote:
| Yes. Not all business models utilize public advertising. For
| example, MLMs like Amway and LuLaRoe.
|
| Advertising didn't exist for most of history because mass
| media didn't exist. Advertising is part and parcel of mass
| media.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > framing advertising and propaganda as essentially the same
| mechanism - just with different masters.
|
| They're not the same mechanism, they're the same thing.
| Propaganda is advertising one doesn't approve of, and
| advertising is propaganda that one does approve of. The fine-
| slicing is the result of people who want to make money doing
| propaganda attempting to justify themselves.
|
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce
| would still happen. Information would still flow.
|
| Through what mechanism? Wishes?
|
| I'm getting annoyed with people who made a bunch of money in
| advertising talking about banning advertising (or in general
| people who made a bunch of money in X trying to create careers
| as X-bashing pundits or gurus.) Advertising has a purpose; it's
| how I find out what products and services are available, and at
| what cost. People working in advertising who don't realize that
| have clearly never given the only honest aspect of their
| occupation a moment's thought. They thought the job was to
| distract people while robbing them. From that perspective, I
| can understand why they now think that they themselves should
| have been banned.
|
| If you want to ban advertising, you have to replace
| advertising. We have a highway system, there's no reason why we
| can't have a state _products and services that are available_
| system, or in the same vein a matchmaking system between
| employees and employers. We don 't, though. Banning advertising
| without one would be like banning Human Resources departments
| without any other hiring process.
|
| What we should do is regulate advertising, since is is
| commercial speech and we can, but we don't do that either.
| Talking about banning advertising when we can't even ban direct
| to customer drug advertisements (which can be easily done, as
| it was done, by creating standards for the information that has
| to be included with a drug advertisement, and the format that
| it has to be done in.) We can't even get the basics; _banning
| advertising_ , in addition to being a bad idea, is a pipe
| dream.
| barnabee wrote:
| > Advertising has a purpose; it's how I find out what
| products and services are available, and at what cost.
|
| When I am unable to avoid it (which I'm relatively successful
| at), it's how I explicitly decide what to avoid. See an ad,
| penalise the company.
|
| But yet I have no trouble finding and evaluating products
| when I actually need something.
|
| Search engines, real and virtual marketplaces, word of mouth,
| reviews all exist already, and all can work without paid
| shenanigans.
|
| There's no need to replace advertising, we can just ban it.
| njarboe wrote:
| One bright spot is that I find it much easier to avoid ads in
| my media than in say the 1990's. There is usually a higher paid
| tier with no ads. Youtube, X, HBO, etc and ad blockers on the
| web. I'm off of Google search with Kagi. I mostly use services
| that I pay for an much prefer that model.
|
| But everything going to LLMs will make it harder to see/know
| about the ads. Google search was great when it first came out
| and then SEO happened. How long before you (NSA, CCP, big corp)
| can pay OpenAI to seed its training data set (if this is not
| already happening)?
| amelius wrote:
| What I'd really like to see is a study on how much advertising
| drives consumerism and thereby eventually climate change /
| pollution. Maybe this could start some discussion.
| dangus wrote:
| Let's talk about the modern world then. You want to get away
| from the grind of working for someone else and sustain yourself
| on your own.
|
| Perhaps you could turn into a subsistence farmer making every
| home product you own on your own or in a small commune, or
| perhaps you and a group of employees could buy your existing
| employer.
|
| But the other more realistic method is that you would start
| your own business so you no longer have to work for someone
| else.
|
| 19% of all American adults are starting or run a business. It's
| a very common way to make a living.
|
| IMO the idea of removing advertising entirely would essentially
| entrench the status quo even further. People would only know
| brands like Coca-Cola, Tide, and Apple, the brands they knew
| about the day the ads shut off. There would be no chance for
| other companies to enter markets because they would have no
| realistic way of spreading the word about their alternatives,
| not even for small local businesses.
|
| The proposal is not just radical, it's downright moronic if
| you've ever been in the shoes of owning your own company.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| > People would only know brands like Coca-Cola, Tide, and
| Apple, the brands they knew about the day the ads shut off.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if these brands are so dominant
| because they can afford to flood the country with ads.
| bdangubic wrote:
| I am 50 and I can't recall more than 3 ads between these
| three companies. _especially_ apple... ads may get you
| first X customers but the reason tide /apple/cc are
| dominant is because they made shit that everyone wants.
|
| coca cola is such a ridiculous product that there isn't a
| situation/place/... on the planet where asking for one is
| odd. you can be in 876 star michelin seven-years-long-wait
| list restaurant as well as nastiest rats-on-your-should
| shithole and asking for coke would be the most normal thing
| dangus wrote:
| This is true. Big brands that have advertisements all over
| like Coca-Cola do it precisely because their position is so
| saturated and dominant.
|
| They need to remind you about them even though you already
| prefer them and know they exist because they want you to
| buy more than you would otherwise.
|
| I still think a lack of advertising for smaller competitors
| really would be devastating. DuckDuckGo and Reddit achieved
| pretty amazing recent growth aided by major outdoor ad
| campaigns. These were sites that were not market leaders in
| their categories and had a lot of catching up to do.
| interludead wrote:
| But I think part of the article's point is less about banning
| all forms of spreading the word and more about dismantling
| the surveillance-driven, hyper-targeted ad economy that's
| become the default.
| dangus wrote:
| That is really not what the article says at all. It is
| working in absolutes.
| barnabee wrote:
| > IMO the idea of removing advertising entirely would
| essentially entrench the status quo even further.
|
| This doesn't seem correct to me.
|
| Products would still be searchable, but the wealthiest
| companies could no longer pay for placement or pay to have
| their brand name repeated endlessly so it's on the tip of
| your tongue but you don't know why.
|
| People would still talk in their communities and share
| recommendations.
|
| Reviews (unpaid) would still be a thing.
|
| Markets (real and virtual) where you can compare competing
| products and make a decision wouldn't go away.
| dangus wrote:
| As one example, I think about how DuckDuckGo was able to
| grow to a decent size against an impossibly entrenched
| competitor aided by a large outdoor ad campaigns.
|
| Reddit also grew more rapidly in recent years post-IPO for
| similar reasons. Reddit used to be more niche with fewer
| people even knowing it existed.
|
| Knowing alternatives exist is half the battle. This fair
| comparison you hope people will make is just a hope without
| the ability to advertise. People have to know all possible
| alternatives exist in order for the market to be perfectly
| competitive.
| threatofrain wrote:
| But the way you frame the problem suggests it's not tech
| people's responsibility at all. It's a much bigger issue of
| governance that society as a whole must decide. Has there been
| any society on earth that has made the decision to ban
| advertising?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> We'd just be freed from the increasingly sophisticated
| machinery designed to override our decision-making.
|
| That isn't all advertising. That is the modern algorithm-
| dependent systems that curate ads for individual viewers. In
| the good old days of print ads, ads targeted at say the
| readership of a particular magazine, we did not suffer from the
| downward spiral. There is no reason websites cannot have static
| ads. Many do. The issue is not advertising per se.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising.
|
| While we're at radical thought experiments combine that with
| "what if any entity worth over 100 million (insert arbitrary
| limit here, perhaps what if it was based on an multiple of
| average employee salary) was disallowed".
|
| And, in fact, if the maximum company size were limited, and
| thus the marketplace wasn't a swimming pool full of whales, but
| instead full of a much larger number of a broader mix of
| smaller fish, what would advertising look like then?
|
| For example, large categories of industry would have to change
| hugely into cooperative non-owning groups of smaller companies.
| Would they still have the same advertising dominance, or would
| the churn within the groups break things up?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I'd rather cap salaries than company sizes. The logistics of
| certain industries may naturally require more manpower than
| others and put them at a disadvantage.
|
| But someone earning $10m a year while their workers are on
| food stamps is unacceptable. Having a dynamic limit of total
| comp would mean they either take less money and put it into
| the company, or raise the wages of those employees.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Sure it's just a thought experiment.
|
| But even in the strict context of the experiment for very
| heavy industry, like a steel mill or chip fab, they could
| be co-operatively owned in whole or by parts.
|
| You could also extend the experiment to allow capital
| assets to be discounted, or allow worker-owned shares to be
| discounted. So you can get big, but only by building or by
| sharing, respectively.
|
| Obviously the big industries today would not be possible as
| they are structured. But what _would_ we get instead? Would
| the co-operative overhead kill efficiency dead, or would
| the dynamism in the system produce higher overall
| efficiency and better worker outcomes than behemoths
| hoarding resources and hoovering up competition? And if no
| one can be worth over 100 million (say), what would that do
| to the lobbying and deal-making system at the higher
| levels? One 10-billionaire would have be be replaced by 100
| people.
| barnabee wrote:
| I like the direction but some things are difficult to imagine
| happening at all without extremely large companies.
|
| I have wondered before about restricting a company's
| diversity. Effectively giving a time limit after a company
| over a certain size develops a new line of business by which
| it must be spun off into a new company. Say 12 or 18 months.
|
| For example, Apple would have been allowed to develop and
| launch Apple Music but it would have been forced to spin it
| off.
|
| The rule would need to be carefully crafted, and would need
| regulators to be active in enforcement as it would require
| interpretation to be applied (similar to how anti-trust works
| today, perhaps).
| amelius wrote:
| It's better to limit companies by number of employees, not
| worth. That way, you break up the economy into modular
| components that humans can more easily understand (and whose
| outputs can be used by other companies). Also, it pushes for
| more efficiency. And it lowers barriers to entry.
| noir_lord wrote:
| That parallel between propaganda and advertising is why I have
| a pathological hatred of advertising, I block it in all forms
| possible, to the extent that if I can't block it I won't use
| the product.
|
| I simply hate been manipulated.
|
| So much so that I forget what the modern tech landscape is like
| for the average user til I use one of their devices.
|
| We've (collectively we for techies) helped create a dystopia.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I am the same exact way.
|
| When I visit my parents it's eye opening how much advertising
| they're bombarded with daily.
| barnabee wrote:
| 100% agree.
|
| I am happy to pay for an ad-free version of a product I want
| but I will _never_ use your product if I cannot block or
| remove the ads.
| ruszki wrote:
| Isn't Hacker News for advertising for Y Combinator and topics
| which are important to Y Combinator?
| amelius wrote:
| You don't have to drive every argument/position to its
| logical extreme ...
| ruszki wrote:
| Why not when I reply to a logical extreme, aka
|
| > all forms possible, to the extent that if I can't block
| it I won't use the product
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, good point.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The part that really struck me was framing advertising and
| propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with
| different masters.
|
| Advertising is just a name for a delivery mechanism for
| propaganda. Its not a difference of master, as is clear in the
| political realm where when we focus on a particular commercial
| delivery vehicle we talk about "campaign advertisements" but
| the content is still "political propaganda".
|
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce
| would still happen. Information would still flow. We'd just be
| freed from the increasingly sophisticated machinery designed to
| override our decision-making.
|
| No, the mechanisms would just get even more sophisticated, to
| work around whatever (inherently, and unavoidably, arbitrary)
| lines were drawn against "advertising" while permitting the
| flow of information and opinions about products.
| simgt wrote:
| > No, the mechanisms would just get even more sophisticated,
| to work around whatever (inherently, and unavoidably,
| arbitrary) lines were drawn against "advertising" while
| permitting the flow of information and opinions about
| products.
|
| Probably, but it would make advertising much more costly thus
| less appealing and reduce its market size. Just like for any
| other prohibited activity.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I wonder a bit if this point of view is an 'age' thing, which
| is to say if you're under 40 it rings true, if you're over 40
| it sounds silly kind of thing. I don't know that it is, it just
| feels that way a bit to me.
|
| What if we outlawed surveillance capital instead? "Ad tech" is
| about exploiting information about individuals and their
| actions, what if that part of it was illegal because collecting
| or providing such information about individuals was illegal?
| (like go to jail illegal, not pay a fine illegal).
|
| By making that illegal, collecting it would not be profitable
| (and it would put the entity collecting it at risk of legal
| repercussions). "Loyalty cards", "coupons", "special offers
| just for you", all gone in an instant. You could still
| advertise in places like on the subway, or on a billboard, but
| it would be illegal to collect any information about who saw
| your ad.
|
| If you're over 50, you probably read a newspaper. And in
| reading the newspaper might have looked at the weekly ad for
| the various supermarkets in your neighborhood. That never
| bothered you because you weren't being "watched". The ad was
| made "just for you" and it didn't include specials on only the
| things you like to eat. When read a magazine you saw ads in it
| for people who like to read about the magazine's subject
| matter. Magazines would periodically do 'demographic' surveys
| but you could make that illegal too.
|
| Generally if you're under 40 you've probably grown up with the
| Internet and have always had things tracking you. You learned
| early on to be anonymous and separate your persona in one group
| for the one in another. That people have relentlessly worked to
| make it impossible to be anonymous angers you to your core and
| their "reason" was to target you with ads. By maybe that it was
| "ads" was a side effect? That is probably the most effective
| way to extract value out of surveillance data but there are
| others (like extortion and blackmail).
|
| I resonate strongly with the urge to slay the "Advertising
| Monster" but what I _really_ want to slay is how easily and
| without consequence people can violate my privacy. I don 't
| believe that if you made advertising illegal but left open the
| allowance to surveil folks, the surveillance dealers would find
| another way to extract value out of that data. No, I believe
| choking off the "data spigot" would not only take away the
| 'scourge' of targeted advertising, it would have other benefits
| as well.
| emacsen wrote:
| This is IMHO the right angle.
|
| Advertising is virtually impossible to stop, but more than
| that, is not inherently evil. Most countries include laws on
| how you can advertise. For example, you can't lie and make a
| claim that your product can't live up to, you can't use
| certain words or phrases, and you have to have disclaimers in
| some situations.
|
| In the mid-90s when Yahoo was a young company, they had a
| simple advertising model. The ad would be placed next to the
| section of the site relevant to the category. If you were
| searching for watches, a watch ad would be next to it. The
| advertiser would know how many times the ad was served and
| how many times it was clicked on.
|
| They didn't have deep demographic data like they do today.
|
| The surveillance capitalism model is the predatory model.
| Advertisement is only one part of that industry.
| tommica wrote:
| I do wonder if there is any legitimate societal value this
| "surveillance capitalism" or is it all just pure net-loss
| for the society? I get that corporations make money from it
| and sell data to whatever entities, but is there truly
| nothing of positive value in it?
| emacsen wrote:
| There are arguments one can make for benefits of
| surveillance capitalism, but you used the exact right
| word, "net". We can't say "Is the a benefit or not?" but
| "Is there a net positive", and that's a different
| question from is there _any_ positive.
|
| With that, let me outline where I think proponents would
| argue there is a benefit
|
| - Consumers get "relevant ads".
|
| If an ad company knows you're in the market for a new
| grill, it's better for them to show you advertisements
| for grills than for soap. The argument made here is that
| the consumer wastes less time, has less of an issue with
| ads (since they're relevant) and is better informed
| (arguing that ads are a form of information).
|
| - Advertisers waste less money
|
| The argument here goes that an advertiser who puts out an
| ad on TV or a magazine only has some vague notion of who
| the audience is. If they know who they want to target to
| buy their product, they don't to spend money advertising
| to people who aren't going to buy their product.
|
| - It lets smaller advertisers come in for a niche
| audience
|
| Let's imagine that your product or service is very niche.
| You're likely to have less resources to spend on
| advertising, and you need to make your ad spending count.
| With surveillance capitalism and targeted ads, you can
| reach your target market.
|
| I don't personally view these benefits as outweighing the
| net negative of the incredible amount of information
| collected on people and the way this information is used
| not only to get people to spend more (since that's what
| advertisement is) but also for psychological and even
| political manipulation as we saw in the last US election
| where different people would be shown customized ads to
| stir up their fears and doubt.
| barnabee wrote:
| I'm over 40 and I think banning advertising is perfectly
| reasonable and should be done. I have been certain of this
| since at least my 20s, and since before the emergence of the
| current fully formed hellscape.
|
| I have long thought advertising is the new smoking. One day
| we will look back and be amazed that we allowed public mental
| health and the wellbeing of our civilisation to be so
| attacked for profit.
|
| I also manage to fairly easily live a life in which I see
| remarkably little advertising.
|
| * I use a suite of ad/tracking blockers
|
| * I don't use apps that force ads on me
|
| * I watch very little TV, and never watch broadcast TV
|
| * I live in the UK which has relatively little outside
| advertising, and I mostly get around by walking/cycling (thus
| avoiding ads on public transport)
|
| * etc...
|
| It astounds me when I speak to friends and travel just how
| pervasive advertising is for some people, and particularly in
| some places.
|
| The US, for example, is insane. I can see how some people
| used to living in such an environment may think it's not
| possible or reasonable to get rid of advertising, and for
| sure there will be edge cases and evasion, but my experience
| is that it really wouldn't be so hard to dramatically reduce
| the amount people are exposed to.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Fair enough. One of the things that has influenced my
| thinking on this topic was living through the laws on
| smoking being enforced. But perhaps a better analogy is
| noise laws. For me, it's preferable to use the power of the
| state to _prevent_ someone from pushing something on you
| that you object to. Not to outlaw the objectionable thing,
| but rather to insure that people have a straight forward
| way to avoid the thing and can be assured that if they take
| those steps they won't have that thing imposed upon them.
| When we use state power to deny people agency, that's when
| it gets dicey for me and that was what I 'heard' when I
| read the original article. I dislike drug laws for that
| reason, I think it is reasonable to ban the use of drugs by
| people who are doing things where the effects of drug use
| can cause harm to innocent bystanders, but I think it
| unreasonable to ban their use by individuals in their own
| home where all the consequences are landing on their own
| head.
|
| I too use ad blockers and privacy protectors, and people
| are constantly trying to get around them. _THAT_ behavior
| should be outlawed I think. If I 'm choosing to use
| blockers and you don't like that, then deny me your
| website. That's your choice. Deploying exploits so that my
| adblocker doesn't work? Or convincing the people who wrote
| browsers that adblockers are theft? THAT is bad behavior
| (again in my opinion of course).
| simgt wrote:
| > check out the documentary "Century of the Self".
|
| The editing is not for everyone but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
| You come out of it not really knowing what it did to you, but
| something changed.
|
| This is a fantastic recommendation, and Adam Curtis'
| documentaries are all on YouTube somehow.
| dostick wrote:
| > What's frustrating is how the tech community keeps treating
| the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
|
| If you think deeper, to first principles, it's clear that
| disease is capitalism. I am not advocating socialism/communism,
| but isn't it strange that capitalism was never reviewed or
| updated according to new science about anthropology, sociology,
| and economics? In 100 years, about 100 countries tried it, and
| not one country can report a harmonious society. It's always
| with inequality and suffering.
|
| Every science has new advancements and discoveries, every
| single one except political sociology. Why is more advanced and
| modern political economic system never seriously discussed? On
| what assumption is capitalism still being implemented? It was
| never working yet still it is referred as something like "word
| of god" that cannot be argued with.
|
| If this was a situation in an IT company and methodology
| company uses constant change, it ends in disaster. After about
| one such cycle, management will be looking into changing
| processes and choosing something else instead of Agile or
| Waterfall or whatever is used.
|
| For about 30-40 years now, we produce enough to feed and house
| everyone. Henry Ford introduced a five-day work week, which
| should be down to one workday by now. But instead, we got
| "bullshit jobs," which are about 50% of employment in
| unnecessary made-up jobs to keep people occupied (marketing,
| finance). And still in the AI age, a person who is born now is
| brainwashed into capitalism and has to find an occupation,
| study, and work till retirement. Capitalism does not accept you
| for who you are. It only accepts you if you have some kind of
| occupation that brings value.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > capitalism was never reviewed or updated according to new
| science about anthropology, sociology, and economics?
|
| If taking a human-science view, then one interesting take on
| capitalism is that it isn't a _thing_ at all. It 's the
| _absence_ of a thing. It 's a positive freedom. There can be
| no "science" of capitalism.
|
| It allows the direction of excess human psychological energy.
| It is the absence of regulation of anti-social criminal
| behaviours, by creating an allowable "grey area" between
| moral and wicked behaviours - what so many business people
| like to call "amoral". But that same energy is innovative,
| creative - the destruction of what is old and weak is part of
| any finite-sized system. The need to destroy, dominate and
| exploit is strong in a significant percent of the population.
| Any decent study of criminology is continuous with
| "business".
|
| William James, in _The Moral Equivalent of War_ [0] suggested
| that we coped with this in the past by having every few
| generations of males kill each other in wars - and of course
| implied that it 's mainly a gendered issue. During frontier
| times, as the European settlers conquered America and other
| lands, there was ample "space" for exploitation as that
| energy was directed against "nature" (and the indigenous
| folks who were considered part of "nature" as opposed to
| "civilisation"). Now we've run out of space. The only target
| left for that energy is each other.
|
| Social-"ism" etc are projects to try controlling that nature
| by reducing "individualism" (and insecurity-based consumerism
| is an obvious first target). It's major fault is that the
| anti-social criminals tend be want to be the ones doing the
| controlling - just wearing the mask of civility and preaching
| the primacy of "the group".
|
| If we cannot change human nature we must find a new outlet
| for that energy. Space exploration as a new frontier always
| looked good, but in reality it's something we are unlikely to
| achieve before self-destructing the technological
| civilisation needed to support it.
|
| That leaves little else but a kind of cultural revolution.
| The pharmaceutically catalysed version of that in the 1960s
| is worth studying to see where and why it went wrong. See
| Huxley.
|
| Any realistic systematic change would need to address this
| "problem" of the individual ego, creating some new focus that
| is the "moral equivalent" of war.
|
| [0] http://public-library.uk/ebooks/65/5.pdf
| interludead wrote:
| That line about the mechanical difference between selling
| sneakers and selling a political ideology being minimal - yep.
| Once you've seen how the sausage gets made in ad tech, it's
| hard to unsee it. It really is the same machine, just tuned for
| different outcomes.
| tjpnz wrote:
| >We've built something that converts human attention into money
| with increasingly terrifying efficiency, but we're all trapped
| in a prisoner's dilemma where nobody can unilaterally disarm.
|
| We still get a choice about where we work, and we could choose
| not to put glorified ad companies on a pedestal.
| febusravenga wrote:
| I explicitly refused project related to mobile location data
| crunching few years ago. I told it loudly to my manager then,
| I was already thinking I'm too arogant. But it was outlr
| market, it worked out we've found other project.
|
| Now I would probably bend my neck and accept it. It's just
| not everyone has choice.
| libertine wrote:
| > The part that really struck me was framing advertising and
| propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with
| different masters.
|
| The main difference between advertising and propaganda is that
| advertising usually is obvious and loud, and in many countries
| is required to be declared: people need to know they're
| watching an ad. You have specific placements for ads that are
| clearly defined: tv breaks, outdoors, even banners. It's true
| that there are active efforts to blurr those lines, but still.
|
| The problem of propaganda is that it's mainly being done
| covertly, no one is saying they're speaking on behalf of
| someone or of an ideology.
|
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce
| would still happen. Information would still flow.
|
| While this concept sounds good, it doesn't seem to work in the
| real world. For example, could shops have billboards on their
| property? What about businesses that didn't have prime
| locations? How would people know they existed? How would small
| businesses compete with big retailers?
|
| One of the things the internet brought, for better and worse,
| was to lower the barrier of entry--you wouldn't need to be a
| massive brand that could afford to have its product placed on
| TV Shows or even to have sales teams selling door to door.
| lordnacho wrote:
| > Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a
| world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce
| would still happen. Information would still flow. We'd just be
| freed from the increasingly sophisticated machinery designed to
| override our decision-making.
|
| We would no longer be tricked into buying a bunch of crap that
| doesn't make us happy.
|
| But because GDP is what it is, we will have a recession. Quite
| a big one, because a lot of the economy is reliant on selling
| people stuff they could do without. Perhaps people would be
| happier once things settle down, but we have locked ourselves
| into measuring things that are easy to measure, and so we're
| all going to think it was a failed experiment.
| lll-o-lll wrote:
| > The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that
| today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic.
|
| Which was obvious at every step of the journey. Google was, is,
| and always will be an advertising platform. Advertising was,
| is, and always will be the manipulation of human emotions and
| desires for the purpose of corporate profit. This is not a good
| thing! How did you ever justify this to yourself?
|
| I've had recruiters push the poker machine jobs, the ad jobs,
| the high frequency trader jobs... You get to look at the
| business before taking the job; work for better people. No
| shade on anyone who's there because they just need a job, but
| if you have a choice, pick something better.
| Certhas wrote:
| An advertisement ban is also an interesting idea from the
| theory of free markets perspective.
|
| Consumer needs are met by the most efficient producers,
| products compete for consumers on the market. That makes a ton
| of sense. But ad spending inverts this relationship. Consumer
| needs are no longer an external condition for the market but
| become subject to producer intervention.
|
| This creates a source of misalignment between incentives for
| producers and the public good.
|
| I think outlawing ads would go a long way towards fixing
| capitalism.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| > The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that
| today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic.
|
| While my opinion on ad tech has been negative for years, over
| the past couple of years I've come to realise how much this
| business model depends on outright crime to survive.
|
| If you have YouTube ads on any device, you probably noticed (at
| least in my country) that a large fraction of ads are for
| either extremely low quality products (such as shitty mobile
| games, apps of dubious value that probably exist mostly to
| gobble up your data, or just shady IRL products), or outright
| scams of various kinds.
|
| In one case I saw an obvious scam ad that impersonated a famous
| person in my country. I reported it to YouTube, and got back an
| email a while later that said that the ad did not break any of
| their rules and my report was dismissed.
|
| Some weeks later I read a news article that reported that that
| exact scam had scammed some old people out of large amounts of
| money.
|
| Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I was genuinely surprised
| that my report had been dismissed. While I already thought
| YouTube is to blame in serving users scam ads, I had naively
| assumed that YouTube doesn't _want_ to serve scam ads, it 's
| just hard and expensive to filter them out systematically.
|
| But no, they _want_ to serve scam ads. Even when they get
| pointed out they refuse to remove them. A dollar paid by a
| scammer is just as good as a dollar paid by someone trying to
| advertise a real product. And they 're not liable for the scam,
| so why would they care?
|
| But surely that's too simplistic. Even a complete sociopath
| would understand that having your website/app overrun by scam
| ads will tarnish its reputation over time, or invite more
| aggressive regulation. So these long-term risks don't seem to
| be worth it. Unless, of course, scams are a very significant
| fraction of ad revenue.
|
| So this is my hypothesis: scams ads provide a very significant
| fraction of advertising revenue on at least YouTube, and
| possibly most social media, perhaps to the point where the
| business model would not be viable without them.
| qoez wrote:
| A lot of winners today are those that get away with greyzone
| illegal practices. The same would happen in a "ads are illegal"
| world. People would pay for word of mouth, or even pay
| influential people to casually talk about it, but it'd be off
| the books etc.
| lolinder wrote:
| If you followed this line of reasoning consistently you'd
| advocate for no additional regulations to ever be imposed by
| government and all existing regulations to be walked back.
| That is, to most of us, patently absurd. The answer to your
| objection is to enforce the laws that we have, not to never
| make new ones.
| dingnuts wrote:
| not every line of reasoning is intended to be followed to
| its fullest extent. one can advocate for regulation without
| advocating for prohibition without contradiction.
| Muromec wrote:
| People do actually advocate for exactly that.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| And as the poster said, that's patently absurd.
| louwrentius wrote:
| People still steal, but we aren't contemplating to just
| abolish the laws that prohibits theft.
|
| A new law is proposed and people may break it in the future.
| Is that a reason not to implement that law, because that
| seems to be the - in my view crazy - insinuation.
| lambda wrote:
| I live in Vermont, where billboards are illegal. It's great,
| there is so much less visual pollution driving anywhere.
|
| And yes, some people do try to push it, renting space to park
| their hay carts that happen to have their business
| information on the side.
|
| But you know what? Those cases eventually get dealt with too,
| and overall, the law is a complete win, even with a few
| people testing the line.
| mlsu wrote:
| In tech specifically: is it the same mechanism? I mean, does
| commercial advertising and political propaganda flow through
| the same channel?
|
| I would love your input as someone on the inside. My
| understanding, broadly, is that when there's commercial
| advertising, it goes through a different channel; there's an
| auction, the ad is marked, CTR is tracked etc. whereas I think
| the political polarization and the use of propaganda on social
| media happens much less explicitly: it's "mixed in"with the
| non-ad content that's posted, and therefore much harder to
| detect or remove.
|
| I'm also curious how you might handle influencers. Those, like
| propaganda operations, are an attempt to influence people's
| behavior but "from inside" the ad/non-ad boundary.
|
| And then, I'm convinced, a lot of our politics today is simply
| an emergent phenomenon of the algorithmic feed. That there is
| no master, corporate or political, that lead to this condition.
| It simply happened as a result of "for you." (I think this is
| changing, as the powerful are discovering how powerful the
| algorithm is at influencing their subjects).
|
| I think I agree with you broadly. The total sublimation of
| human relationships and interactions into "the machine" has a
| whole host of really bad side-effects. Jacking into cyberspace
| causes the shakes, at a society wide level and certainly at an
| individual level as well.
| whacko_quacko wrote:
| I feel that the lumping together of advertising and propaganda
| in the article is very apt. That's why I find it somewhat
| sinister. You should be allowed to try to change minds. If
| anything should be outlawed, it's the massive tracking effort
| involved.
| kevinsync wrote:
| I actually kind of enjoy advertising -- most ads are shit, but
| some are very clever. Low budget ones make me laugh, or admire
| the (complete lack of) execution. I like to see the graphic
| design trends, the typography, the strange brand collaborations
| and IP tie-ins, the vogue cycles of looks, feels, musical
| choices, the trends that get beaten to death with a hammer.
| It's all very interesting, not to mention the glut of weird
| products, insane sales pitches, the general _grift_ on display.
| Simply fascinating shit.
|
| Intellectually I know most people wouldn't mind living in a
| world without Slap Chop and those old Quizno's ads and Kylie
| Jenner solving racism with a Pepsi and Arnold riding a
| pennyfarthing inside of a Japanese energy drink bottle, but IMO
| that stuff really brings color to our often-monochrome human
| existence.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > The part that really struck me was framing advertising and
| propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with
| different masters.
|
| A big reason for that is influence from Edward Bernays:
|
| "Edward Louis Bernays was an American pioneer in the field of
| public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as
| "the father of public relations". While credited with advancing
| the profession of public relations, his techniques have been
| criticized for manipulating public opinion, often in ways that
| undermined individual autonomy and democratic values."
|
| Bernays' mother, Anna, was Sigmund Freud's sister. There seemed
| to be a talent in that family in understanding the human
| psyche, and how to utilize that understanding.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
| endofreach wrote:
| > The part that really struck me was framing advertising and
| propaganda as essentially the same mechanism
|
| You might enjoy reading about- or a book written by- Edward
| Bernays.
| johndhi wrote:
| Kind of love this idea...
| zxcvbnm6789 wrote:
| I think this needs to be fixed at a different level. Companies
| (at least in the US), are supposed to be growing.
|
| "You're Either Growing Or You're Dying."
|
| Banning or limiting advertising will be hard until that type of
| thinking changes.
| solcloud wrote:
| That would be huge, also really good original scenario idea for a
| future sci-fi film
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| Funnily enough, this comes via HN which is a beacon of non-
| advertizing. Would like to hear the admins tales of the various
| commercial approaches they've had over the years.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| Is there any concrete evidence that anything bad has ever
| happened as a result of advertising? I don't like rap music, but
| I think it would obviously stupid of me to claim that it's
| harmful because I dislike the aesthetics.
|
| What is the steel man for "advertising bad"? Articles like this
| always take for granted that advertising is harmful, whereas on
| the contrary I'm starting from a position where advertising is
| one of the greatest things that has ever happened, enriching us
| and making our lives far more vibrant and diverse. PS I have
| never worked on ads and rarely use them for my products, they are
| just obviously economically beneficial for everyone.
| 888666 wrote:
| I agree. Many things we benefit from are free or significantly
| reduced in price due to the profitability of advertising. I
| would not want to live in a world where I'd have to find
| everything through word of mouth and not get to try free
| versions of services.
| y42 wrote:
| it's not really about advertising, but it's effects.
| advertising per se is not bad, basically it's just some kind of
| product information. that's all. but it's coming with some
| negative effects that are bad. SEO and Affiliate are one of the
| best examples to that. the thing is that advertising is
| connected to revenue/profit. which is the root cause of all
| little problems up the stream.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| I definitely agree, and I think we should focus on mitigating
| the actual bad things while either recognizing or considering
| that the ads themselves are actually good. It's definitely
| possible to improve the situation and trying to give up and
| destroy everything will not help (I don't agree that profit
| motive is bad though, it's incredible and beautiful as an
| aligning force for humanity)
| curiousObject wrote:
| > _Is there any concrete evidence that anything bad has ever
| happened as a result of advertising? ... What is the steel man
| for "advertising bad"?_
|
| Electoral politics[0], alcohol, tobacco[1], drugs, gambling,
| unbridled consumerism ... for example
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
|
| [1] https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/throwback-thursday-
| wh...
| mgraczyk wrote:
| The Reichstag fire has absolutely nothing to do with
| advertising, and imagining that it does completely ignores
| and trivializes the entire history of pre-Nazi Germany
| V8Falcon wrote:
| If you'll humor me leaning into the steel man and addressing
| advertising-as-practiced i.e. ad-tech rather than advertising
| in the abstract sense:
|
| Data collection is the big harm right now. Advertising
| companies have enormous databases on ~any individual's
| interests, political opinions, gender identity, and much more.
|
| The immediate harm of all this data collection is that, while
| Google has good security practices, the average webshop or
| advertising middleman does not, and so data leaks are frequent.
| Stalkers and harassment groups as well scammers and other
| fraudsters already use such leaked data. This particular harm
| is in the here and now.
|
| The big looming threat is: What happens when a government
| decides to tap into these databases. (Y'know. Like they do in
| China.)
|
| Because right now, should a government ever want to, it can
| just call up Google, Facebook, whomever else, and ask: "Give us
| a list of everyone who meets these criteria".
|
| This completely trivializes any kind of large scale oppression
| of the people. Pre-compiled lists of almost every political
| dissenter, with verticals across almost every topic imaginable.
|
| It's no hypothetical either. During WWII, the Nazis seized
| civil registry records in order identify and kill people as
| part of the holocaust. There's no reason why any future
| authoritarian government won't do the same to the big ad-tech
| databases.
|
| ---
|
| For something in a lighter mood: The one general problem about
| advertising is that it's an industry prone to quite a lot of
| fraud. There's an inherent information asymmetry in that
| advertising agencies have a near-monopoly on not only the
| performance data, but also how it's gathered.
|
| How many impressions did a video get? Only Facebook knows.
| What's an impression? Only Facebook knows. And why would they
| ever be honest about those two things to you, the advertising
| buyer?
| mgraczyk wrote:
| My counter argument to things like this:
|
| As you pointed out, very simple registries are already more
| than sufficient for government oppression. Detailed data that
| Facebook collects, like which brand of dog food you prefer,
| is neither necessary or even helpful for government
| oppression. The ads data is not even 1% as useful to them as
| things like telephone records, which the telephone companies
| will happily send as required by law
| magicmicah85 wrote:
| Advertising is not a modern phenomenon, business owners would
| shout and have town heralds advertise through them. Everyone
| being literate is a modern thing and people need to learn how to
| modulate themselves. You don't have to buy things cause something
| is on sale. A business owner is absolutely entitled to shout if
| their underwear is 20% off and you're entitled to ignore them.
| c0wb0yc0d3r wrote:
| I've thought about a world where ads are illegal several times.
| I think a better compromise might be all ads must silent and
| static, no movement. In my mind this includes ad carousels.
| That would mean that there would regulation in place stating
| that a digital billboard can't switch ads more than once per
| day or something.
| freetime2 wrote:
| The biggest TV event of the year in the US is the Super Bowl, and
| a big part of the event that people look forward to is
| advertising. Ad spots during the Super Bowl are famously
| expensive (like millions of dollars for a 30 second ad), and
| advertisers try really hard to make funny or memorable ads. There
| are lots people who don't care about football and watch just to
| see the ads.
|
| The best ads and brands are an iconic part of our culture -
| something cherished and celebrated by many. I think this is worth
| keeping in mind at least when talking about banning
| advertisements.
| jcotton42 wrote:
| I'd argue that people look forward to the Super Bowl ads
| specifically because they're clever/funny, and not at all
| because they're ads. You could replace them with non-
| advertising skits and they would have the same draw.
| owleyey3o wrote:
| I think Bill Hicks had something to say about this once:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY
| oulipo wrote:
| Hmmm many cities in France have toyed with this idea for a long
| time, so it's already not that wild, and clearly in the public
| discourse in Europe
| martin-t wrote:
| This has been on my mind ever since I realized 2 things:
|
| - the difference between zero-sum and positive-sum games
|
| - that large parts of society are engaged in zero- (or even
| negative-) sum games 1) some through choice or 2) because they
| are forced to, to be able to compete with group 1)
|
| Advertising, manipulation, misinformation, disinformation, and
| lying are all related phenomena with negative effects on both
| individuals and society.
|
| Just like Wales is the first place to propose punishing lying, at
| least from some positions of power, I am looking forward to
| whatever country becoming the first to make advertising illegal,
| at least in some forms and scales.
| hurtuvac78 wrote:
| I think this is an excellent discussion to have.
|
| Say we implement this, a natural consequence would be mega-
| corporations providing every service possible. My Yamaha bike
| displays a message to promote a Yamaha music keyboard, then
| expanding to a new Yamaha bookstore or grocery chain.
|
| No money exchanged out of the first-party Yamaha holding.
|
| We would need to improve the proposal to prevent that too.
| sneak wrote:
| I hate intrusive, obnoxious, aggressive advertising - but using
| media to increase awareness of one's products and services is a
| net good to society in a lot of cases.
|
| I'm as anti-advertising as they come and this is too far. There
| needs to be a more reasoned approach. Banning tv ads, or
| billboards, or online advertising, or certain practices - fine. A
| blanket ad ban would do far more harm than good.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Google was initially incredibly useful because it ranked pages
| created by people who were largely not motivated by advertising
| using an algorithm that didn't allow you to pay for placement.
| Now both the content and the algorithm have been heavily co-opted
| and so people are turning to 'AI' half technological wonder and
| half merely just returning to unbiased relevance based responses
| to user queries. At least until that too starts to replace
| relevance with paid advertising in its responses and the cycle
| will start anew.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about advertising. Small businesses
| definitely need advertising to at least compete with the bigger
| guys, but online platforms such as Google and Facebook are simply
| landlords in the electronics age. Microsoft too, with its
| "monopoly" of desktop OS and how it tries to force ads down our
| throats.
|
| I feel it's impossible to get rid of those Ads platforms such as
| Google or Microsoft. Businesses need them. If you ask me, I'd
| say, government should levy a heavy tax on Ads , so basically
| like gas stations, they are only allowed say 10% of profit
| margin, and they must cap their ads somehow. Ads is basically a
| public service, and every public service, if not run by the
| State, should only allow a very small margin of profit, like
| public transit and such.
| worik wrote:
| Read the bio of the author. It includes this:
|
| > I spend my time as a creative marketing strategist and
| technologist, growing public companies and startups.
|
| Sounds like they may know what they are talking about....
| hypertexthero wrote:
| One way to do it in social media:
|
| https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2025/04/05/The-CoSoc...
| almosthere wrote:
| Why? Are people going to your house and measuring your feet and
| asking if you want to buy sneakers?
| ryao wrote:
| Advertising medicine, medical services and legal services used to
| be illegal because it is unethical. Then the US Supreme Court
| ruled it had to be legal. This is just stating history. Interpret
| it as you will.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| If you want to take an incremental step towards this start here:
| make it illegal to buy or sell user data.
| an_aparallel wrote:
| As long as capitalism is the current zietgeist, nothing wrt
| advertising changes.
|
| In Australia, liquor ads were banned on sports jerseys and
| stadiums, tv (i think) and so on. But now we have this ridiculous
| Orwellian environment where literally every jersey is plastered
| with an online betting platform, online and tv advertising for
| these same (addictive) platforms. Each ad is suffixed with a tiny
| disclaimer that "gambling destroys lives/gamble responsibly".
| Fucking please....
|
| I used to work in advertising. One thing is clear, the biggest
| advertisers have insane amounts of money to throw around. It
| doesnt have to be effective, all it has to do is repeat itself,
| everywhere at all times.
|
| Advertising is very closely linked to oversupply of products we
| dont need. Governments are to be very clear not in existence to
| safeguard the public from anything. If they were, the law would
| penalise large producers for planned obscelesence, poor quality
| products designed to break, which in turn requires incessant
| advertising to keep the machine moving.
| fsniper wrote:
| Perhaps another approach could be a seperate or a subset internet
| where advertising is punished by banishment. Routing and Dns
| records to be deleted on proof of advertisement.
|
| Sure it's a very hard to implement and most probably easy to
| abuse idea.
|
| However is it impossible? Food for thought.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| But why? The whole premise seems wrong.
|
| > The financial incentives to create addictive digital content
| would instantly disappear
|
| No they wouldn't.. the business model would change. Facebook
| sells ads to businesses and entertainment to consumers. People
| still want to be entertained.
|
| What about the positive effects from advertising? Many products
| which I never knew existed have gone on to improve my life.
|
| To kill addictive digital content (especially those targeted at
| young people), just go after them directly. I agree the world
| will be a better place once we don't spend 10-16 years old
| online. But the advertising argument doesn't make any sense to
| me.
| al_borland wrote:
| I would be OK with the death of using user data to hyper target
| ads to people. I think they can be targeted enough based on
| context, such as a fishing blog having ads for fishing stuff.
| Modern advertising by the likes of Google and Facebook has too
| much information, to the point where it can manipulate and
| target people directly, as they can do with their algorithmic
| feeds as well.
| James_K wrote:
| Most users are not happy with addictive apps. The psychology of
| something you pay for is fundamentally different to something
| that's free. If your choices were paying for TikTok, or paying
| for actually good entertainment, I think a lot of people would
| do the latter.
| agnishom wrote:
| [Slavery is immoral] is a corollary of the principle that [human
| autonomy is sacred]. It is not very farfetched to have the moral
| principle that [human attention is sacred]. If we take this
| principle seriously, a large number of manipulative dark patterns
| would be considered wildly unethical.
| yallpendantools wrote:
| I fundamentally disagree. You are basing your tenets on two
| overly-broad ideas that don't make for a good basis for an
| actionable framework. You are kinda motte-and-baileying.
|
| First of all, I dispute that "human autonomy" is the basis for
| the immorality of slavery. Rather, it is the preservation of
| human _dignity_. The subtle difference being, you can cede a
| certain amount of your autonomy without losing any dignity such
| as when taking on a specialized role to function in a society
| (in other words, a job). Actions that violate another 's
| autonomy has some overlap with actions that violate another's
| dignity but "some overlap" is all that is really there to it.
|
| "Human attention is sacred" therefore...what? Would, for
| example, schools count as a violation of human attention? A
| good book? A perfectly fine movie with a smattering of product
| placement? There's no telling what the blast radius of your
| principle here is.
|
| Rather than thinking of human attention as a sacred inviolable
| thing, it is more akin to a currency each of us can spend. We
| just have to facilitate wiser spending.
| agnishom wrote:
| That's a fair point. Much like the original article, I don't
| have a very good idea of where to draw the lines
| ddxv wrote:
| Ads power the free internet. I prefer them to paywalls and silod
| information.
| nmstoker wrote:
| Nice idea but so utterly unenforceable. If you want to look at
| challenges around regulating advertising, the ASA in the UK is an
| interesting case, as when being set up in the 60s, they foresaw
| many of the difficulties and structured themselves to minimise
| them. If you're overly specific, people look for loopholes, so
| they focused on the spirit and they also went with a strong
| element of self-regulation whilst still having teeth where
| necessary. Even so, in the modern world, the internet spanning
| jurisdictions makes it all very hard to deal with.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| au contraire.
|
| internet have very few entry points, and they are all corrupted
| by advertising.
| dave333 wrote:
| Why not just ban FALSE or MISLEADING advertising like Europe
| does? Apparently there is no difficulty in determining what is
| false there although I can see it might be a problem in the US
| currently.
| dd_xplore wrote:
| We'd back in Soviet Russ
| jongjong wrote:
| It's a solid idea, and could even fall under 'anti-spam laws'
| with some additional clauses. There should be a daily or monthly
| limit on the max number of people that a person or entity can
| contact or send unsolicited content to... Maybe like 100 people
| per day on average. That's more than enough for anyone to make a
| living as a sales person.
|
| Big tech has been mass-spamming us with unsolicited content for
| decades and driving monopolization, centralizing opportunities
| towards those who can talk the talk and away from those who can
| walk the walk. So we've been getting lower value for our money
| and also losing jobs/opportunities which has made it harder to
| earn money.
|
| It's crazy that big tech is allowed to spam hundreds of millions
| of people with unsolicited content but if any individual did it
| on the same scale, they'd be in jail.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| How are you going to define advertising? Does the proposal
| include making it illegal to tell friends how happy you are with
| $PRODUCT from $COMPANY - which made a truly good product and had
| good customer support, and deserves to have the word spread?
|
| Is it advertising if you say it in conversation? What about on
| your blog?
| bradleyy wrote:
| The buried lede:
|
| ```Populists exploit ad marketplaces, using them to bypass
| traditional media gatekeepers```
|
| I want to believe that the author is hopelessly naive, and not a
| more nefarious actor. These traditional media gatekeepers are not
| by any means friendly to democracy; they're literal tools of the
| state, and actively work against the interests of the populace. I
| say this without a hint of irony: I trust social media more.
| airstrike wrote:
| Citation needed. I'll take a free media which is held
| accountable for not misstating basic facts over social media
| any day of the week.
| grg0 wrote:
| Then you'll be thoroughly disappointed by US media. It's also
| not just about misstated facts, but facts they don't state at
| all when it is convenient for them.
|
| I also say this without a hint of irony: I don't trust two
| shits on either side of the aisle.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| It's always the same story. I'm mad trump or some "right
| leaning" party won so this is what we can do to prevent that by
| being authoritarian "to fight fascism" and "the greater good".
|
| It's not an honest what if because it finds no downsides or
| tradeoffs nor does it try to define what exactly would be
| ilegal.
| throw5425 wrote:
| Counterpoint: ads are non-issue.
|
| I've been on the internet for over 25 years and there wasn't a
| time in which ads were more than a mild annoyance. Sure, a
| 5-second ad before watching a video, or a porn ad in The Pirate
| Bay, or an ad in a news site - I could do without them. But it's
| a nothingburger, and I'm grateful for those ads, as many of the
| sites I use would not exist without them. For anyone who's really
| bothered by them, there are ad blockers.
|
| Furthermore, user data and tracking is a huge bogeyman, and it's
| extremely overblown. I'm yet to see any evidence of anyone having
| any _relevant_ data about me AT ALL. With any luck they can
| profile me in that I use certain sites, or that I 'm a male in my
| 30s and I live in X country. Generic shit at best. Relevant read:
| https://archive.is/kTkom
|
| If anything, so-called targeted ads have been failing on me
| because I'm never suggested producs or services I'd actually buy.
|
| So, what's the issue here? For all the issues we currently have,
| ADS are the worse? No.
|
| What I think is:
|
| a) This is an elitist in-group "luxury belief". It's like saying
| I hate ads signals a sort of superiority, as if you're part of
| people in the know, and ads are for normies or NPCs. That's for
| inferior people, I'm above that.
|
| b) This is a problem for people in the autist spectrum, in which
| those who say they hate ads are overrepresented.
|
| But I think there's a darker undercurrent since this view has
| been lobbyied and astroturfed to oblivion:
|
| c) This is a propaganda effort to distract you from more
| nefarious things, or to encourage them. Such as normalizing
| banning and prohibiting things. Normalizing strict state-enforced
| regulation of the internet.
| wruza wrote:
| I actually think that pre-internet ads were okay. Even the tv
| ones, before the era of obnoxious marketing came (but not
| really). I read a bunch of journals my and my friends's parents
| have ordered and it was even cool to see ads that weren't
| targeted. I remember looking at pages with watches, suits,
| condoms, beauty lines, hair shampoos, etc. It was sort of natural
| and wasn't as stupid and repulsive as modern internet ads. The
| ads were consistent with the auditory of the issue, so if you're
| reading it, chances are you're interested. And the best part was,
| when you put it down, it doesn't follow you.
|
| So I think more about making internet ads illegal, just to wash
| out all the spying filth from it. Alphabet, meta, parts of
| amazon, etc. They are natural cancer and prone to propaganda
| attacks because it's the same thing.
|
| As per entertainment, people will find the way. Kids these days
| may not know, but nothing has as much energy as a bored teen/20+
| ager. We formed physically local groups based on interests and
| had life that wasn't 99% passive peering into the screen.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I'm amazed that people can both see how the current
| administration is twisting laws and are even thinking that it is
| a good thing to give the government more control over speech.
| troyvit wrote:
| Regarding ads as free speech:
|
| > Bullshit. No one is entitled to yell at you "GET 20% OFF THIS
| UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY" with a dopamine megaphone in
| your bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how
| to say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment.
|
| The same argument could be applied to the homeless people I see
| on most corners these days with cardboard signs designed to pull
| my heart strings. It's a different brain chemical, but it's
| actually real and it affects my re-uptake inhibitors a lot more.
| Should we ban them? Or just their signs?
|
| Here are a few of the many defenses against advertising that are
| all free:
|
| - Ad blockers for browsers
|
| - Kill your television
|
| - Listen to and support public media (unless those sponsorship
| messages count as ads which is a valid argument)
|
| If literally everybody applied just those three things,
| advertising would die a natural death without having to ban
| anything.
|
| <rant>
|
| I'm a bit of a free speech zealot, and so I'll pull the slippery
| slope fallacy and just ask: after ads, what do we ban next?
| Sponsorship messages like public radio uses? Product placement in
| movies? Would we be allowed to have _any_ real products in movies
| or would everybody drink Slurm instead of Coke and drive around
| in Edisons instead of Teslas? Are movie previews allowed? What
| about product reviews where the product is given to the reviewer
| for free? What about Simone's presence on The Late Show with
| Stephen Colbert years ago? That was entertainment, but it also
| clearly advertised her YouTube channel. Is that allowed?
|
| </rant>
|
| We humans are one of the few animals that have within us multiple
| ways to kill ourselves. While that's mostly thanks to our awesome
| thumbs, our speech is another powerful tool. We're also one of
| the few animals that can, with much work, transcend our
| weaknesses and be more than the goop that makes us up. Finding
| out whether we do is the whole reason I'm sticking around.
| klntsky wrote:
| > The financial incentives to create addictive digital content
| would instantly disappear
|
| It's naive to think so. The obvious argument against that is that
| the behavior of the consumer, not the producer, is what
| constitutes the problem
| voidmain wrote:
| A start might be to enforce, or perhaps strengthen, laws against
| _false_ advertising. I think most advertising is dishonest
| outright or at least by implication or omission. If everyone in
| the chain of custody of commercial speech was held liable if the
| speech was misleading, the world would look rather different.
| Compare the tone of a company 's ads to the tone of its SEC
| filings.
| 725686 wrote:
| I haven't reade the article, but YES PLEASE.
| floodfx wrote:
| I think a better thing to do would be to outlaw algorithmic feeds
| where monetization is via advertising. If subscription based that
| is fine. The incentive for sub based monetization is to keep you
| long enough to continue subscribing. For ads it is to keep you on
| as long as possible which trends towards divisive / fear / anger
| inducing content.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > Any form of paid and/or third-party advertising would become
| illegal. Full stop.
|
| I am currently selling my house. He's basically saying this would
| become impossible. This whole post has some real
| im14andthisisdeep energy.
| jdjdjdjdjd wrote:
| Start with just outlawing political advertising.
| simpaticoder wrote:
| Not thinking big enough. Make paid-for public speech illegal.
| Make speech _free_. Eliminates advertising plus punditry. Imagine
| a world where no-one gets paid a kingly sum to whisper poison
| into the ears of millions on a daily basis.
| dzikimarian wrote:
| IMO advertising itself is ok, if not targeted by profiling user.
| I'm reading about bikes and I'm offered a bike or helmet? Fine by
| me.
|
| Problem starts, when I'm scrolling $socialWebsite and I see ton
| of biking ads, because some Orwellian ad network is tracking me
| through time & space.
|
| Then content starts to serve as means to push ads into my eyes
| whenever I dare to open them. If content is crap - doesn't matter
| - if I switch to other source ad will follow.
|
| What's worse - many people were brainwashed into believing that's
| normal. I remember guy from Chrome team, who published draft for
| web attestation. He was convinced he's doing good thing because
| brands have "right" to be sure they're getting real eyeballs and
| he was just making this process "better" for the users.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| If ads are ok, how do you feel about this one
| https://i.imgur.com/599PMEl.jpeg
| nilslindemann wrote:
| I'm against advertising that presents a simplistic, beautiful
| world -- in other words, manipulative advertising. Which is
| basically all advertising currently. Nevertheless, there must be
| ways for producers to communicate the existence of their product
| and its advantages to the consumers. Comparable to how
| programmers put links to their projects here. How do you inform
| potential car buyers that you have built a car that consumes one
| liter less gasoline and travels 25 km/h faster, if you are not
| allowed to advertise?
| mdnahas wrote:
| Economist here. My biggest issue is with the "news" industry.
|
| Companies provide what the customer wants. And, as the adage
| goes, if you're not paying, you're not the customer, you're the
| product. Advertisement-funded "news" isn't meant to enrich the
| reader/viewer -- it is meant to attract the reader/viewer.
|
| I think that perverted incentive has always existed with it, but
| the internet ad technology has really killed the information
| content. And now we're have society-scale problems with
| misinformed citizens.
|
| I don't think industry will solve the problem. If a company
| allowed users to opt out and pay, their richest customers would
| do that and those were the ones most valuable to advertise to.
| So, offering an opt-out probably loses them money (and increases
| costs).
|
| I think the news industry should be advertising free. I'd have to
| think on if it should also have govt funding, but that often gets
| co-opted.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| >I think the news industry should be advertising free.
|
| When's the last time you paid for a newspaper?
| vladms wrote:
| From a forum with technical people (that build stuff) I would
| have hoped to see more ideas that would propose replacing
| advertising with something better (sorry, if I missed any
| replies, but did not see that).
|
| Advertising can be useful (to find out about stuff) but very
| disingenuous (because people can lie). What I would very much
| like is to be able to assess the trustworthiness and similarity
| of people advertising me stuff. If someone likes same things as
| me and I never find him to "lie" (whatever my personal
| interpretation of that is) I should give him more trust. If
| someone picks things that I am not interested in and I think he
| favors stuff (because he is paid, for example) I should give him
| less trust. Then when I look for a product/video/restaurant I
| should see things recommended by people I trust more.
|
| I know this kind of happens with "stars", "vloggers" and so on
| but lacking a system where you track it, means that it is easier
| to get complex to separate who is just "fun" and you watch but
| you know he lies and who is also "trustworthy" and you know you
| can also take his recommendations into account.
|
| But that's just one idea, maybe there are others out there...
| luqtas wrote:
| > I am convinced that outlawing advertising is the best thing we
| can do for our world now. More than gun control. More than
| tackling climate change.
|
| i would rather live in a world of public transportation, with
| less children and vegan oriented (climate change == enviroment)
| without people with guns and only at the hands of an effective
| police; 100x times than an ad. free world...
|
| wrote this at my Android without a single ad. notification, via
| Firefox along ublock. been a while i watch an ad.
| chneu wrote:
| That's an issue I have with this article. We can avoid
| advertisements, it really isn't that difficult. It can be
| inconvenient but that's better than slowly eroding your sense
| of normalcy.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| I'd rather not live in a childless police state, actually.
| x62Bh7948f wrote:
| This idea immediately reminded me of "The Girl Who Was Plugged
| In" by James Tiptree
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_Who_Was_Plugged_In
| cloudbonsai wrote:
| This novella is a masterpiece and needs rediscovery.
|
| > The protagonist (P. Burke) is a lonely, severely depressed
| teenager. After a failed suicide attempt, an international
| telecommunication company offers her a new job -- to become a
| remote operator of a public celebrity. She is given a new
| persona "Delphi", and her new job is to buy products publicly
| to advertise them.
|
| The protagonist is basically a Youtuber/Instagram
| influencer/TikTok streamer today.
| wanderingbit wrote:
| As someone who grew up in the state of Vermont, where billboards
| have been outlawed since the 60's, this feels do-able. It is also
| such a high leverage change that I'm going to keep thinking about
| this.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| Where do we draw the line at what counts as an advertisement? I
| just bought a cassette tape that I learned about from a Facebook
| post. What do we call that post if not an advertisement? And if
| that was illegal, how exactly would I have found out the tape?
| Word of mouth? I don't think there is anyone in a 100 mile radius
| who listens to the same kind of music as me.
| unhingedcrouton wrote:
| Hell yes. Advertising is legitimate interest but it has become
| completely degenerate with social networks and the attention
| economy.
|
| It is the root cause of many modern issues and _something_
| definitely needs to be done about it. It even erodes capitalism
| itself by making consumers the product, which has been known for
| a while but the generalization seems non-obvious - that this
| happens every time when to the producer-consumer relationship is
| introduced a third party that changes the financials incentives
| of producers.
|
| I probably wouldn't go as far as making advertising completely
| illegal but I'd like to see it regulated and probably limited to
| spaces specifically made to be "advertising hubs" both online and
| in the physical world.
| largbae wrote:
| I love this idea. Jaron Lanier should join forces with the
| author.
| mlboss wrote:
| How will a new business promote its product if advertising is
| banned ?
|
| Thinking from a small business perspective, advertising is the
| only way to find consumers if you are just getting started.
|
| Business stop advertising. Sales drop. People lose job.
| econ wrote:
| It is possible because the largest incumbents would profit
| enormously
| gpsx wrote:
| If you are a new company starting out (suppose aluminum siding),
| you have to market your product or else nobody will know about
| it. I'm not sure what all parts of marketing are counted as
| advertising here, but generally in marketing you pay to get word
| out about your product. Wihtout that, starting a business might
| be tough. And then, as a consumer, there are lots of free
| products I have gotten my entire life by virtue of the fact that
| one of those companies offered to pay for it for me. If you turn
| that off I'm not sure how that all would work. I don't think the
| OP goes into too much detail.
| wskish wrote:
| I think about this a lot. Consider the difference between the
| tidy signage of Tokyo versus the pell-mell streetfronts of Hong
| Hong. Societies should be able to choose how businesses impinge
| the public space.
| duped wrote:
| Where I live this is hyper local. Some municipalities are
| extremely strict on ads (to the point of fining _churches_ over
| signage on their property) and some are overrun with billboards
| and ads on every corner and bench.
|
| I don't think this is as much as a "societies choose" as "some
| societies have no choice." The municipality I'm in now
| struggles with property tax revenues and has to stoop to what
| I'd call predatory revenue streams (gambling, ads, etc) to make
| up the difference. And it creates a feedback loop.
| tintor wrote:
| Burning Man is an example of advertising free world and it is
| quite a refreshing ad-free week.
| snapplebobapple wrote:
| This is poorly thought out. What this would incentivize is first
| party content networks. Instead of fox selling ads it would be
| the colgate channel for example
| disambiguation wrote:
| What's really interesting about this is that it's not just about
| advertising, but rather several deeper issues that all intersect
| with it.
|
| * the pervasive tracking of data and serving targeted ads without
| consent.
|
| * the addictive algorithms engineered to keep users engaged in
| the feedback loop.
|
| * the machinery being used beyond commercial purposes -
| influencing opinions, manufacturing consent, and sometimes being
| hijacked by bad actors.
|
| Not to mention the philosophical and psychological implications.
| What does democracy mean when elections come down to who spent
| the most on Ads? What's the merit of capitalism if consumers can
| be brain washed?
|
| Like most here, I have a vendetta against Ad-tech and go to great
| lengths to keep ads out of my life (i highly recommend opnSense -
| Blocking ads across the whole home network is pure bliss).
|
| But should they be illegal?
|
| Questions of what constitutes an ad, how to enforce such a rule,
| and my personal opinion aside: I don't think its inherently wrong
| for a company to promote their products. I do, however, believe
| that all of the above points - data tracking, addictive
| algorithms, non-commercial ads - are bad and should be illegal.
| Outlawing all of those practices would do a great deal to
| restoring balance to advertising and the web.
| justthinkzzz wrote:
| People already give away free advertising for free by wearing
| branded clothing. That is more beneficial to companies then
| actual ads on screens.
| zhyder wrote:
| One of the things that bothers me most about advertising is that
| we sell attention to the highest bidder. It happened before
| online ads too but online ad networks 'perfected' the bidding
| process. And I say this as someone who's made much of my wealth
| indirectly off of such ad networks.
|
| It means the expensive product/service gets your attention, coz
| it can afford a higher bid, instead of the one that's better for
| you. It also sets a high floor on prices.
|
| To some extent the bidding process was needed when there was
| inherent scarcity of inventory to place information (e.g.
| billboards or the 1 local radio station), but there's no scarcity
| online. Why can't we just have a web where product/service info
| is listed, and people can seek that info through some search
| engine?
| rietta wrote:
| Impossible in the United States under the constitution. To put
| plainly, this would be a colossal first amendment violation,
| abridging the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
| bdangubic wrote:
| what else seems "impossible" under the "constitution" and yet
| happens daily (if not hourly)...?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Yeah not really. Advertising has been and is currently banned
| in many forms and situations. Freedom of speech and freedom of
| the press is not unlimited.
| https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=be04fd64-b899...
| MilnerRoute wrote:
| Norman Mailer once suggested that advertising just be heavily
| taxed.
|
| Since its positive impact on society is limited, this would be a
| way to channel some of that mind-warping wealth into actual civic
| improvement...
| etempleton wrote:
| People will hate me for saying this, but when people want to ban
| advertising they fail to realize how much utility they actually
| get from advertising when it is done in a straightforward,
| ethical way. At the core, advertising and advertisements are a
| way to inform potential customers of a product or service that
| they might like. A few points for consideration:
|
| 1. You probably only know about half the things you like, enjoy,
| and use because of advertising. Did you see a trailer for a movie
| on YouTube you wanted to watch? That is an ad for a movie. Did
| you get a demo disc for a new band at a party or club in the 90s?
| That is an ad. Did you see the concert lineup poster? Ad. No one
| complains when advertising is done well and provides utility.
|
| 2. Ads subsidize things you enjoy. Browsers, search engines,
| television, your tv, most websites, are all subsidized through
| advertising. You can say would prefer to just pay full price for
| it and avoid the ads, but most people clearly would not like to
| when given the option.
|
| 3. What even is an ad? What is the line? Are store signs an ad?
| Are movie trailers? Defining what an ad is and isn't is messy and
| a bit silly.
|
| 4. The alternative may be worse. What happens when traditional
| ads stop working? Businesses still need to get their message out,
| so what do they do? They hire YouTubers to play talk positively
| about their product, they wine and dine journalists and
| publications for favorable coverage, which becomes easy because
| without ads they are hurting for revenue. If ads were banned this
| would get worse.
|
| It is nice to opine about a utopia without ads, and believe me, I
| often do, but the reality is advertising has been around for
| thousands of years and integral to how business and even society
| works.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| > You can say would prefer to just pay full price for it and
| avoid the ads, but most people clearly would not like to when
| given the option.
|
| Truth is, you pay the full price anyways, because the money
| earned through ads is also paid by you.
|
| Even worse: you additionally pay the advertising industry
|
| > Businesses still need to get their message out, so what do
| they do? They hire YouTubers to play talk positively about
| their product, they wine and dine journalists and publications
| for favorable coverage, which becomes easy because without ads
| they are hurting for revenue. If ads were banned this would get
| worse.
|
| No, we wouldn't see it at all, because that's advertising.
| 627467 wrote:
| You know what is an example of propaganda/advertising? Peta,
| extinction rebellion et al antics. Marching for right to bear
| arms. Standing outside of Tesla dealers dissuading shoppers.
| Militancy, activism in general. At this stage of society I too
| think having less of any of this is good. It's a shame there's no
| ad blockers for militancy. The chance to achieve consensus on
| this is 0, so we will be left with propaganda to try to shift
| public opinion towards censuring one militancy over another
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| You seem to have mentioned pretty much the only things that I
| think are worth keeping under your definition of "advertising".
|
| (Noting that the extremities of some of those examples are
| already illegal)
|
| It does highlight, however, that a shared definition of a
| spectrum of what "advertising" actually means, is the first
| step towards being able to exploit whatever rules the
| politicians decide upon.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Let's start with banning the sharing/selling of customer data,
| tracking data, or anything else that can be aggregated to form
| some idea of a targetable resource.
|
| That would shed some initial societal parasites. See what's left,
| and then go after the next biggest / grossest topic in the space.
|
| I could get behind that particular brandishing of chainsaw.
| reboot81 wrote:
| The sadest part is that we the consumers pay for having things
| constantly popping up infront of our eyes. There should be a
| "NoAds"-label on products that have chosen to not levy the ad-tax
| on us consumers.
| washmyelbows wrote:
| The inability to get a TV/stream box without some kind of ads
| cooked in infuriates me to no end, and it just feels like it's
| getting worse
| holyknight wrote:
| I don't think I fully agree with either the premise or the
| solution, but the pov is at least refreshing; in a world full of
| people proposing the same stuff we already tried 100x times over
| the last 70 years and we already know it doesn't work.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Honestly, I'd have no issue with banning advertising. Truth in
| advertising laws don't seem to have any effect at all, and spaced
| repetition combined with targeting is pretty much the most vile
| thing I've ever seen.
| termau wrote:
| What a nonsense idea, you'd need to nationalise news, in the USA,
| right now this would not go to well, imagine Trump having the
| only news outlet...
| lunarlull wrote:
| The funny thing is so much of the advertising industry seems like
| embezzlement or fraud. So much of the time money is being pumped
| into this industry unnecessarily, things like Coke could not pay
| and suffer no loss in profit. It seems like some nonsense to keep
| money within first world nations or something. Just money going
| to a gamble which doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny as
| reasonable.
| spit2wind wrote:
| Do you always answer the door for Jehovah's Witnesses,
| alternative gas companies, or posters? Usually, people put "No
| soliciting" signs on their doors and in their yard. They get
| irritated, if not irate, when these people ring the doorbell. How
| is advertising any different? Would you invite these people into
| your home to watch TV with you, eat dinner or drive around town?
|
| I see it as a privacy issue.
| fmxsh wrote:
| Isn't this article advertisement by the Chinese Communist Party
| (CCP)?
|
| (edit: I have actually been thinking in similar terms as the
| article, but I do think the article is optimistic and utopian, as
| if a good intuition would be enough to prevent the very same
| forces from exploring the reform
|
| Filtering visitors by fingerprint of the browser (cloud flare and
| palemoon) won't stop bots, but creates a market for more
| sophisticated bots)
| guy234 wrote:
| what
| EGreg wrote:
| Advertising is a zero-sum game, just as most crypto and stock
| market activity.
|
| It's the basis for web2 economy just like crypto is the basis for
| web3 economy, though. So it's hard to make a man admit something
| when his livelihood depends on it.
| anovikov wrote:
| It will give enormous power to the monopolies. Because you'll no
| longer be able to advertise your product, but search on
| marketplaces will still be legal right? That means, Amazon,
| Alibaba etc. will have an absolute chokehold on everyone who
| sells things.
| noqc wrote:
| I say this shit all the time.
| molybdenum_plus wrote:
| I really dislike the impulse to ban things we don't like.
|
| Of course, a ban on advertising will never happen, because it's
| very useful to some people. I'm more concerned with the general
| pattern of thinking that goes:
|
| 1. I greatly dislike _thing_ and think _thing_ is bad. 2. _Thing_
| should therefore be illegal.
|
| We should be less eager to use the power of law to mold the world
| to our preferences. It should be a solemn undertaking to use the
| law! It's an instrument of coercive power and should really be
| held in reserve as much as possible. Otherwise, we're all just
| petty tyrants sniping one another for minor transgressions.
|
| There are many things that are very bad that nonetheless must be
| legal in a free society! I realize this is a uniquely American
| right, but I nonetheless believe "hate speech" must remain legal.
| It is bad, yes. I do not like it. I really wish it didn't happen.
| However, it is markedly less bad than entrusting some byzantine
| bureaucracy or benevolent dictator to adjudicate the meaning of
| hate speech. I greatly prefer a world with hate speech to one in
| which we apply legal authority to eliminate hate speech.
| fumar wrote:
| Social media is nearly the same as those home shopping channels
| from the 90's.
| eviks wrote:
| > But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for
| 99.9% of its existence.
|
| But humanity has never been free of non-current forms of
| advertising
|
| > The financial incentives to create addictive digital content
| would instantly disappear
|
| No the wouldn't, you can still monetize addictive without ads
|
| > Think about what's happened since 2016 ... fracture our social
| fabric along existing fault lines.
|
| Just think about what happened before 2016 and how many times the
| social fabric had been fractured (sometimes also with foreign
| actors) ...
| MoonZ wrote:
| I'm so happy to read this, I've been thinking about this question
| for a while now, and I think it would help a lot:
|
| Big companies where revenues are based on marketing would
| collapse, the market fragments (which is good), smaller companies
| are created instead, better diversity of local products and
| services. Better wealth distribution. More money for the
| government, hopefully better public services.
|
| With less flashy products and services, people have a better
| purchasing power, even considering they'll have to pay for
| services they use, like reviews. Review companies would need
| strict controls to be put in place against corruption.
|
| It would probably also change a lot of nonsensical landscapes
| (ex: sports)
|
| Advertising is evil.
| kanodiaashu wrote:
| There's some fascinating research by Rachel Griffith which shows
| that advertising can be significantly welfare reducing for not
| only customers, but also for companies themselves (they just
| overall make lower money taken together); it is just another
| dimension of competition, like pricing/positioning, and adding a
| meaningful dimension is costly.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Such and interesting thought provoking situation. So much money
| circulates and thrives off the idea of advertising. The concept
| of YouTube would cease to exist. Some products would never even
| get off the ground without some level of advertising.
|
| What constitutes advertising vs marketing?
|
| Does product placement count as advertising or marketing?
|
| Does opening up a pop shop count as advertising or marketing?
|
| So much to this, ultimately we do need to regulate
| advertisements. But I am not sure we can survive without them.
| ccppurcell wrote:
| Does anyone with a brain think ads inform? I'm not sure they ever
| did. The real issue here is that there's never going to be
| political will for this. Advertising and propaganda are the same
| yes. Lobbying is closely related. Banning anything for the good
| of the people or society is anathema to the current crop of
| politicians. Even if that wasn't the case, anyone putting this
| forward as a policy would find themselves running against an
| extremely well funded opponent with the backing of a lot of the
| media.
| chbkall wrote:
| A lot of people have suggested that the idea is in opposition to
| free speech. The title can be misleading here. The article
| doesn't talk about banning 'advertising' - it specifically says
| "Any form of paid and/or third-party advertising would become
| illegal. Full stop." People can still advertise themselves using
| different channels.
|
| With so much fake news and data, a lot of content has started to
| seem like white noise. Maybe this is a direction worth exploring
| for us as a society.
| interludead wrote:
| I'm kind of shocked how rare it is to see someone say this out
| loud. We've normalized advertising to such a ridiculous degree
| that even questioning it feels like heresy. But yeah, imagine how
| different the internet (and society) would be if the incentive to
| manipulate attention just vanished overnight.
| ddimitrov wrote:
| Some years ago, at the height of the Augmented Reality bubble, I
| had a hackathon idea about smart sunglasses that would replace
| any detected poster and billboard with information of your
| choosing - your favorite art, personal photos, notifications
| about upcoming alarms.
|
| I am no longer into hackathons, but I would pay good money for
| such a product. Bonus points if it is styled like Nada's glasses
| from They Live.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I've sold a product that were only possible to sell because of
| targeted advertising.
|
| The customers were happy and I made a profit.
|
| Hard to see advertising as outright bad even though it should
| probably be more regulated than it is.
| or_am_i wrote:
| What if we built a strong culture around actively avoiding
| advertising? What if we educated the general public about adverse
| effects of time after time giving up your attention, without
| getting anything in return besides a short lived dophamine kick?
| What if we showed how it's only in those moments of paying
| attention a person has a chance to exercise agency over their own
| life, and spending that scarce resource on doomscrolling is a
| catastrophic-group-mind-suicide, sadistically prolonged over the
| lifetime of an entire generation? That the illusion of community
| in the comments is just that, an illusion that dispels the moment
| the user clicks the dreaded "logout" button spitting them back
| into a gray heroine-withdrawal-like reality, isolated from their
| peers, all means of human connection monopolized by the attention
| sharecropping farms? That every moment a jingle on the radio
| captures your mind it's distracting you from something
| necessarily more important? That we are all in effect trapped in
| that externally-perpetuated procrastination loop, with all the
| neon-lit arrows pointing us further and further away from what
| truly matters -- our very lives?
|
| Stay away from the algorithmic feeds, instead get to know your
| authors and choose them explicitly. Stay away from the
| personalized ads, pay for content you care about, block what can
| be blocked, avoid the rest. Learn active banner blindness: catch
| your attention drifting and look away. Uninstall reels, tiktok,
| youtube, sanitize your life from short term attention grabbers.
| Turn off that TV. Mute your car radio. Practice focus: take a
| book and set a timer. Lock yourself up in a room with a hobby
| project. Meditate. Set up a ritual with a friend or family, as
| long as you still got any. Make smalltalk to strangers. Get to
| know your neighbors. Plan that getaway. Choose your life!
| ryangs wrote:
| While laudable, this seems significantly harder to implement
| than banning advertising. Not that either are particularly
| feasible policies but this one seems harder.
| xandrius wrote:
| Change advertising to anything we ban agree to ban as a society
| and you will see why putting the responsibility to the
| individual is not sufficient.
|
| Laws don't get tired or can be forced through dark patterns.
| Laws are generally there to allow us to expect something from
| everyone at the same time.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I have seen it suggested before, but not for a long time. Things
| have become even worse since then. What I saw suggested was to
| ban all forms of marketing, not just advertising. The argument
| was that it exists purely to mislead consumers rather than inform
| consumers which is vitally important for a free market to
| function. So that means standardised plain box packaging, for
| example. Companies like Apple would have to display the features
| that matter, like battery life, rather than hide behind clever
| marketing.
|
| I really like the idea. Fuck advertising.
| codeulike wrote:
| On the South Bank in London, physical advertising
| (posters/billboards etc) is banned and it makes it a much nicer
| place to hang out
| matthewsinclair wrote:
| Rather than ban ads in an absolutist sense, why not think about
| ads as "bads" (rather than "goods" in economic terms) and then
| tax them?
|
| Let's define a "good" as something with positive utility and
| value, and define a "bad" as something that imposes harm or
| negative externalities. If we treat advertising as a "bad" -- not
| uniformly, but in terms of impact (manipulation, misinformation,
| psychological harm) -- then we can apply Pigovian logic: tax it
| to reflect its societal cost. This wouldn't require a blanket
| ban, just a rebalancing of incentives. Less intrusive or more
| transparent ads might be taxed less, while high-volume,
| misleading, or attention-hijacking ones could face heavier
| levies.
|
| This shares the spirit of the original argument but trades
| prohibition for systemic correction -- more like how we treat
| pollution or cigarettes. The advantage is that it avoids the free
| speech trap, acknowledges that not all advertising is equally
| harmful, and allows markets to adjust.
|
| You don't need a moral consensus to act -- just an agreement to
| price the harm.
|
| I have thought a lot about this basic idea of "incentivise goods
| / tax bads" over the years, and even how to do it a way that is
| revenue neutral to the government (via "feebates") and
| advertising is one of the first places I'd try this.
|
| Likelihood of success in the current climate: zero.
| hansmayer wrote:
| Fantastic article, I particularly like the point about humanity
| being more or less ad-free for much of it existence. I was just
| thinking about absurdity of advertising yesterday. As a life-long
| football fan (not soccer ;)), I was always bothered by the slow
| creep-in of those silly, mindless pre- and post-game interviews
| they do with players and managers nowadays. In the two decades
| since this has been happening it never occurred to me why these
| were a thing, until yesterday. In a lead up to a minor game, of
| course there was an interview with one of the players. In front
| of one of those panels with repetitive ads for various
| businesses. As it happens to be the case every time for the last
| 20ish years. Of course! The interviewees are just providing the
| mindless content, while my mind absorbs the background ads! So
| obvious, but it never occurred to me even once. Ad industry is
| really a cancer on society.
| moktonar wrote:
| I see no errors
| admiralrohan wrote:
| Theoretically, this is impossible.
|
| There is already a concept called surrogate advertising. In
| India, promoting alcohol products is banned, but companies
| advertise packaged drinking water instead. Everyone knows what it
| really represents, yet nothing can be done about it.
| _diyar wrote:
| There's much discussion about what constitutes advertising in the
| comments, with some dismissing this question as either solved or
| not crucial. Note however that seriously banning advertising
| requires a clear definition of it.
|
| My 2 cents: Ban payed advertising online, including banner ads,
| search ads, and pre-roll / inter-roll ads (e.g. youtube and
| instagram).
|
| This is a clearly defined market and probably causes a plurality
| of the negative impact of adverts (especially when connected with
| the incentive to algorithmically addict users to show them more
| ads).
| nullbio wrote:
| The issue is that if you ban advertising, we still get
| advertising, but it'll be done in a way that hides that it is an
| advertisement. Aka, the internet will be full of bot posts that
| are thinly veiled ads posing as legitimate inquiry or discussion.
| That's a worse off scenario. Better the enemy you know.
| RedNifre wrote:
| Currently, we have both, so banning ads would reduce ads.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Thought about that years back, and went to the conclusion that
| you can't kill advertising and political propaganda without
| strict rules that every big business and their owned politicians
| would fiercely fight against. Also, advertising is the way they
| keep barely alive an economic system almost entirely based on
| overproduction of unnecessary goods built to not be durable; take
| out advertising and you'll see millions of people bankrupt; not
| thousands: millions. Advertising doesn't scale anymore: from a
| handy tool to discreetly let people two blocks away that a new
| barber shop just opened, has transitioned to a weapon businesses
| use to fit their product between a thousand others, grabbing more
| and more space from every free second or square millimeter, in
| the hope they capture the attention of someone who doesn't give a
| damn about them; and it can only get worse. I'm all for killing
| it, but be warned that if you take it out, you take out the
| entire business universe built around it that depends on it to be
| kept afloat. It'd probably need a few decades, not even years, to
| become reality if someone decided to start the process in a
| harmless way. But would first need a very different political
| environment to be accepted: more power to the state, less to
| corporations, and probably that would conflict with ideas that
| some propaganda, that is, advertising, stuck in the mind of so
| many people several decades ago, and those are quite hard to
| undo.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| Interesting but the issue is that you can't just ban advertising
| because it has many aspects.
|
| 20% discount or tv ads are a form of advertising, easy to spot.
| What about sponsored content ?
|
| It's already trickier to detect, and even then there are
| sponsored content where someone is paid to showcase, review or
| straight up lie about a product quality.
|
| If I make a great job with a customer and I tell him, make
| everyone you know aware how great I am. That's also a form of
| advertising.
|
| Just being myself is advertising for myself, if I'm good at
| something, I can take part in a talent tv show and purposely
| avetise my skills to tv viewer.
| xzjis wrote:
| In France, I had watched a video on the subject more than 10
| years ago, and since then I have been in favor of banning all
| forms of advertising, including and especially IRL in the
| streets. I've been using an adblocker on each of my devices ever
| since I saw that video, and I no longer see any ads (I use
| ReVanced etc. for X, YouTube, etc.), except unfortunately in real
| life since there are still ads in the streets, but at least from
| an activist standpoint, the online advertising industry should
| take a hit.
|
| If any French speakers are interested, I believe it was this
| YouTube channel (which is very interesting anyway for discussions
| about fascism, advertising, manipulation, etc.):
| https://youtube.com/@hacking-social
| sudo_chmod777 wrote:
| What about ads from governments and organisations that promote
| mental health awareness, DEI, etc.?
| giorgioz wrote:
| This sort of thinking is exactly why Big Tech shifted from being
| left Democratic in Obama's time to being center-right Republican
| in Trump 2024 election. Demonizing ads comparing it to Heroin and
| tools of authoritarian regime is a MASSIVE hiperbole. Go to look
| at heroin addicts. Go to look at people that click on a
| personalized ad with cookies that knows they want to buy a new
| fridge. They are very far apart. It's like claiming the
| electricity company holds you slave. Go look at what slavery was.
| The simple truth is that Big Tech is incredibly powerful because
| they earned it. They made incredible technology that helped
| humanity moving forward. Yes there is a great power imbalance
| now. Yes it would be better if that power was less concentrated.
| But it also wrong to demonize Big Tech, to paint them as evil
| Machiavelli's dealing drugs. What we need is a new generation of
| Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple. Yes Steve Jobs in order to build
| Apple in his own time painted IBM as evil, but it was done in an
| ad (paradoxically) and it wasn't the whole government passing
| laws against IBM just to reduce it's power. I'm European and GDPR
| in Europe was in my opinion a very bad move. I don't think third
| party cookies are that bad. And people that think that they are
| bad they usually don't know how they work. Companies shouldn't
| directly export your plaintext data to others. Third part cookies
| didn't do that. So stop painting ads like heroine. Once you
| destroy Google you will have destroyed also the income that
| allowed Google to give us free (g)mail, free maps, chromium and
| then node, Android and a ton of other products I'm not
| remembering right now.
| rvba wrote:
| Someone wants to pull up the ladder?
| mattlondon wrote:
| The article is suggesting that they'd rather not have ads than
| not have guns? Because ads are tools of manipulation? WTF do they
| think guns are for?!
|
| Let's face it, it is incredibly simple to entirely avoid ads
| everywhere online. Vivaldi or Brave will block all ads (Brave
| even does it in YouTube) so just install those in 2 taps and
| you're set.
|
| Many online communities and first party sites are free because
| they are paid for/motivated by ad income though
|
| Sure there are many sites that don't have ads and are done truly
| as a passion project by the owner(s) but many rely on the income
| to pay for bandwidth and hosting etc, or even staff costs. Would
| Reddit et al exist without any source of income?
|
| People say "I'd pay to use foo without ads!" Yet when those
| options are available, and when it comes to putting your money
| where your mouth is, turns out that actually most people don't
| want to pay to access foo without ads (think YouTube, think
| Facebook etc that have ad free tiers that hardly anyone pays
| for). People just block the ads and keep using it for free and so
| the site gets neither ad revenue nor subscription revenue.
| lordnacho wrote:
| The thing that really irks me is celebrity endorsements.
|
| Tell me, do you think Roger Federer really appreciates that watch
| he's selling you? Does he really use that coffee machine that he
| sells, and thinks it's the best one?
|
| We know what his motivation is, he is not your friend who bought
| a watch and a coffee machine, used them, and recommended them to
| you. He gets paid by the producers of the stuff he endorses.
|
| Plainly, advertisers have discovered a loophole in the human
| psyche, and are exploiting it. We evolved to take in
| recommendations from people we know, and billboards/TV/etc are
| close enough to the real thing to trigger _something_ in us that
| doesn't just work when it's a non-celebrity whose face we don't
| know. The effect is big enough that celebrities get paid a
| gigantic amount of money to pretend they are someone you trust
| and recommend some product they never even thought about until
| they got given the deal.
|
| I think we should tax that kind of thing. I'm not restricting his
| free speech. Roger is free to stand in front of the opera in
| Zurich and tell random strangers that they should buy the coffee
| machine. But if you put it in mass media, there should be a
| gigantic tax.
| rusk wrote:
| Advertising isn't the problem. It's a natural part of discourse
| and business. The issue is "dishonesty" and "manipulation" and
| the tolerance of these.
|
| Do we need a way to connect suppliers with consumers? Yes. Do we
| need an intermediary that acts in bad faith? No we do not.
|
| I would propose the crazy idea that such intermediaries should be
| at least equally responsible to the consumers as the suppliers.
|
| That would be helpful.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| > It makes perfect sense.
|
| Only to authoritarians who think banning things is the solution
| to everything.
|
| This is the typical "common sense Genius notion" that hasn't been
| thought out one bit.
|
| This person doesn't care for democracy. They are zealots and
| ignore the fact that:
|
| - marketing is communication to achieve a goal (reaching a
| potential customer about the value of a service) and is a legal
| way for companies to compete. If they can't do marketing legally
| they'll do it illegally and/or compete with violence. -
| discoverability is necessary and if you didn't have any means to
| discover stuff it would be insane or worse, absolutely dictated
| by this "democracy lover" who wants to have total control for
| "the greater good".
|
| I don't like ads one bit and absolutely welcome regulation (which
| is hard because whether you outlaw something or not, the money
| will be there, see alcohol and prohibition) but this is just so
| self congratulating and obtuse that it's hard to take it
| seriously.
|
| All the talk about propaganda or fascism and laughing at the
| concept of free speech tells me this is yet again, one of these
| "my blue party lost the elections and I blame propaganda and ads"
| and that they haven't even given it a second thought beyond "I
| get clicks" because they don't explain how they propose making
| sure communication doesn't hide advertising in it. Articles like
| hers advertise her blog, posting it here is advertising. Making
| any sort of argument about X being better is an advertisement for
| X.
|
| It's like people want to play scenarios in their head and refuse
| to think about economics and game theory because the reality is
| they want to shape the world politically to their will.
| Authoritanism hidden with "good feels".
|
| No thank you. You're far more dangerousn than ads.
| rocqua wrote:
| You can ban specific forms of advertising. But the general form
| is too vague, too easy to hide.
|
| Movies set in our world, for example, should be allowed to show
| real cars, real phones, etc. But that is nigh impossible to
| prevent from becoming a fight for getting your product placed.
| And lots of similar places.
|
| It might be possible to outlaw ads targeted more narrowly than a
| bit of content (i.e. advertisers have to choose, ahead of
| publication, what content to put their ads next to.) Combining
| this with banning some of the more direct advertising might work.
| Though perhaps a world where advertising is purely done through
| product placement is also horribly distopian.
| dash2 wrote:
| This idea isn't uncommon because it's beyond the Overton window,
| it's uncommon because it is silly and unworkable.
|
| * Total fantasy to think you wouldn't fall afoul of free speech,
| both legally (in the US) and morally.
|
| In fact, the author touts _as a benefit_ that you 'd stop
| populists being able to talk to their audience. This is
| destroying the village of liberal democracy in order to save it!
|
| * Absolutely zero thought has been given to how to police the
| boundaries. Giving a paid speech? Free gifts for influencers?
| Rewards for signing up a friend?
|
| * Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what to
| buy. Advertising fulfils an important social role. Yes, I know it
| can be annoying/intrusive/creepy. "In our information-saturated
| world, ads manipulate, but they don't inform" is an evidence-free
| assertion.
|
| * Banning billboards or other public advertising? Fine. Not new.
| Done all over the place for commonsensical reasons.
|
| * Any article that talks about "blurry, "out-of-focus fascism"--
| that sense of discomfort that you feel but can't quite point out"
| is itself blurry and out-of focus, not to say absurd and
| hyperbolic. Calling a mild sense of psychological discomfort
| "fascism" is just embarrassing.
| ozornin wrote:
| > how to police the boundaries
|
| Any existing policy inevitably has a gray area, no matter how
| elaborate it is. That's okay if the author didn't cover corner
| cases in a short essay.
|
| > You don't just magically know what to buy.
|
| Knowing what you need is not magic. I don't remember much
| advertising lately that would tell me how a good can satisfy my
| existing needs. Mostly, they are trying to make me feel I need
| something I didn't need before
| dash2 wrote:
| Hardly a corner case. It's such an obvious question that the
| failure to cover it means the author isn't serious.
|
| Knowing what you need is not magic, but knowing which
| products might satisfy it is not automatic. Advertising
| targeting, which people quite reasonably find intrusive,
| exists because advertisers desperately want to find people
| who may potentially want to buy their product.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| _> Knowing what you need is not magic_
|
| Knowing what you need is easy. Knowing what you might want
| is far harder.
| someone654 wrote:
| > but knowing which products might satisfy it is not
| automatic.
|
| Would not search + first party description solve that? It's
| easy to create a page "you have problem A? Try our product
| B".
| XCabbage wrote:
| Of course it does, but this proposal entails banning
| search engines, right? I can imagine definitions of
| "advertising" that don't encompass search, but this
| author doesn't intend them; he explicitly states that he
| is not just classifying "paid" advertising of products as
| advertising but all "third-party" advertising, "full
| stop", and acknowledges this would make Google "cease to
| exist" in its "current form". He clearly intends his
| proposal to include banning search engines, entirely.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| It doesn't ban search engines, it prevents a company from
| making money with their search engine through
| advertising.
| superfunny wrote:
| > It's easy to create a page "you have problem A? Try our
| product B".
|
| How is that not advertising?
| ziofill wrote:
| Because you'd have to search for and choose to see that
| page, not being fed a banner/pop up
| Hendrikto wrote:
| I agree with almost all your points, but this is just false:
|
| > Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what
| to buy.
|
| We don't need marketing, we need information. Objective
| information, that would be easier to come by in the absence of
| manipulative marketing.
| dash2 wrote:
| You are defining marketing as manipulative. In fact,
| marketing is just "bringing a product to market". For
| example, it includes having booths at a trade show. The line
| between objective information and "puff" is impossible to
| draw. I googled "strollers" and got:
|
| Joolz strollers with ergonomic design, manoeuvrability,
| compactness, and storage space. compare and choose your
| favourite Joolz pushchair model.
|
| Is this manipulation or information?
| mbs159 wrote:
| > Is this manipulation or information?
|
| Looks like manipulation. Information would be a sheet of
| parameters relevant to the product. The cheapest and most
| expensive strollers can be claimed to be "Compact" and
| "Ergonomic".
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| We can see historically that advertising evolved from the
| charmingly blunt "Foo Bros. makers of hats" to "makers of
| the FINEST hats" (untrue, but at least we still know what
| business they're in...) to "wear Foo or no one will talk to
| you again". Along the way, regulations had to be enacted
| here and there, snake oil didn't actually raise the dead,
| so lying about that was banned, but letting us feel that
| we're inadequate because we can see how happy and cool the
| people wearing Foo are on TV (or TT) is just their free
| speech. And of course there are the side effects TFA
| touches on like building trillion dollar empires for Goog
| and Meta, and using the same levers to manipulate voting
| and buying.
|
| Personally, I can imagine a world without ads because I
| block them everywhere I can, and somehow I still manage to
| buy things, even if they might not be making me feel as
| cool as I should if I'd only play along.
| hanspeter wrote:
| How would that be easier to come by?
|
| Who would maintain such information repositories and what
| would the incentive be to take that on? (As they no longer
| could be supported by ad revenue.)
| mbs159 wrote:
| Resellers maintain such information. There are many
| websites where you can specify the weight, height and
| hundreds of other parameters for your product search.
| thfuran wrote:
| Ad revenue is not the only kind of revenue. Traditionally,
| people would pay purveyors for goods or services they
| deemed valuable enough to acquire/use.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Is the right to pay others for speech necessary for free speech
| to exist? If so it is already non-existent. No functioning
| democracy allows judges or politicians to sell their speech to
| the highest bidder for example.
|
| Why should advertisement be different?
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| The difference is that advertising is extremely broad while
| bribing a judge or politician is extremely narrow (not to
| speak of conflicting with their professional remit)
|
| It's relatively easy and sensible to ban very specific forms
| of paying for influence. But a ban on publishing your opinion
| in someone else's publication is extremely broad and
| obviously in violation of free speech. Free speech isn't
| defined as standing on a corner yelling at people.
|
| I also think it's counterproductive. All influence seeking
| (both commercial and political) would be forced to move from
| overt advertising to covert infiltration of our
| communication.
|
| I want more transparency, not less.
| mbs159 wrote:
| > Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what
| to buy.
|
| A-Are you Don Draper by any chance?
|
| Seriously, though: you don't need marketing. What you need
| while searching for what product to buy is a technical
| specification of the product by which you can determine if the
| product suits your needs.
| noahjk wrote:
| I'm not sure.
|
| I keep thinking about this, and the only conclusion I can
| come to is that businesses would still need to be able to
| advertise their own products in places that they own.
|
| For example, what if I want to buy a guitar?
|
| I'm shopping online. First, I need to pick a company to
| purchase my guitar from. How do I choose? Any sort of
| aggregated comparison of places to purchase from can be
| considered advertising, so they are all banned (otherwise,
| astroturfing would be only form of advertising). Do search
| engines also count as advertising? Okay, so I've found a
| site. How do I know I'm getting a good deal? (although this
| is a whole different argument about us worried about getting
| a good deal because maybe we over-consume, it's still a
| consideration).
|
| Now, on that site, is this company allowed to advertise
| different brands that they carry to me? By definition of
| advertising, no - the whole purpose of showing me products is
| to make me purchase, which is the definition. So then do we
| reach a true communist state where there is only one option
| to purchase? If so, can I still not see it because it's
| considered advertising? Okay, fine, I need to be able to see
| at least one guitar, we can concede that point.
|
| Or maybe instead I go to the store to purchase a guitar.
| Firstly, how do I find the store? If they are not allowed to
| advertise, must I organically drive past their store? Are
| there rules on business signs that disallow specifying the
| type of store, because that could be construed as advertising
| products? Or is that limited to a certain brand - the goal is
| to allow all competition equally, so it just says "guitar
| store"? We've already agreed (probably) that this store can't
| 'advertise' itself elsewhere, so the only way I will know
| about it is through (illegal) word-of-mouth, which is still
| technically advertising. Or maybe it's only illegal for
| businesses to advertise? Or for people who are earning money
| from the act? How is that defined?
|
| Okay, anyway, I've made it to the store. When I walk in, I'm
| met with the same dilemma in example one - the store isn't
| allowed to hang up products, because that incentivizes me to
| purchase. Maybe I need to just say "hey, show me a guitar so
| I can try it" and they must present me with a randomly
| selected guitar to avoid bias. We continue this until I find
| one that resonates with me. They can tell me the price of
| each, but not a sale price, as that falls under unfair
| advertising law to incentivize me to purchase a specific
| brand, so brands aren't allowed to run sales anymore. I have
| no idea if I'm getting what I want - sure, it sounds great
| and feels great and I enjoy it, but maybe I could have gotten
| that from a less expensive guitar, or maybe I didn't realize
| that I wanted a different size guitar.
|
| By this point, economies of scale have collapsed because
| every purchase must be organic and therefore every national
| retailer has been dissolved - and most likely the largest
| manufacturers have discovered the best way to exploit this
| situation, so the largest now have natural monopolies and the
| rest have died off because they couldn't compete and were
| selling direct to consumer, not stocked in stores. Speaking
| of which, how do stores even work? How do grocery stores
| work? Every grocery store is built from the ground up on
| advertising. The same logic applies here. Two choices on a
| shelf must be in identical nondescript boxes with absolutely
| no calls to action or differentiators listed. Therefore, the
| smaller companies go out of business, or maybe the companies
| with the largest or smallest packages. In fact, just the size
| of an item can be used to intuit value, so now prices must be
| fixed to size, and sales & coupons are outlawed.
|
| ---
|
| All this to say, marketing in some form has existed since
| time immemorial. Finding value in choices is human nature.
|
| The only way something like this could happen ("Advertising
| is illegal") would be a monumental wide-scale, best-effort,
| not-perfect set of judgement calls, which would require
| drastic overreach by a governing body - which would be
| exploited by finding weak links in the system and exchanging
| something they value to look the other way for a certain
| seller - which is exactly what got us to where we are.
|
| One of the main reasons that we always arrive right back
| where we started is because the people with (less empathy,
| win-at-all-costs, better-than-thou, etc.) mentalities are
| willing and able to exploit the other group, the group that
| wants (peace, fairness, equity, teamwork), because the second
| set of values means enabling those around you, and the first
| set of values means taking advantage of that.
|
| The only way I ever see healthy systems working is in
| relatively small groups of people where there can be shared
| accountability and swift action taken towards selfish
| behaviors, as defined as a community. Unless there is near-
| total buy-in, a system cannot thrive with the assurance of
| fairness, teamwork, equity.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > Any sort of aggregated comparison of places to purchase
| from can be considered advertising
|
| This is where your confusion stems from, I think. Any sort
| of independent third-party review site is totally not
| advertising as far as I'm concerned. The problem with sites
| like Yelp is that they accept money from companies and are
| susceptible to astroturfing. But truly independent
| reviewers like Consumer Reports, are pretty clear not
| advertising.
|
| > Now, on that site, is this company allowed to advertise
| different brands that they carry to me? By definition of
| advertising, no - the whole purpose of showing me products
| is to make me purchase, which is the definition. So then do
| we reach a true communist state where there is only one
| option to purchase? If so, can I still not see it because
| it's considered advertising? Okay, fine, I need to be able
| to see at least one guitar, we can concede that point.
|
| This seems like handwringing about the most extreme
| possible form of legislation possible which nobody is
| proposing. I am not sure what definition of "advertising"
| you're thinking of, but having a list of what products your
| store sells isn't advertising by any reasonable definition.
| darioush wrote:
| the difference here is if you search or seek something,
| i.e. explicitly consent to viewing advertisements for
| guitar in your active browsing session vs them being pushed
| to you without your consent the next day on your phone.
|
| I'm not against monetizing advertisement for the 1st use
| case either.
| spencerflem wrote:
| A list of stores by closeness is not advertising, a site
| dedicated to impartially reviewing guitars is not
| advertising, telling your friends about a guitar you like
| is not advertising.
|
| I hate all the comments being so coy about definitions.
| Ublock seems to block ads pretty well. Maybe start there
| and not these crazy hypotheticals where anyone saying
| anything about a product is banned
| 627467 wrote:
| > In fact, the author touts as a benefit that you'd stop
| populists being able to talk to their audience. This is
| destroying the village of liberal democracy in order to save
| it!
|
| the irony is the author is using propaganda to spread populist
| ideas
| jeberle wrote:
| This argument is an example of the Perfect Solution fallacy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_soluti...
| bsnnkv wrote:
| I knew there had to be a fallacy for this line of argument,
| thanks for sharing this!
| cubefox wrote:
| See also
|
| https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-buying-things-from-a-
| st...
| cal85 wrote:
| It really isn't. The comment argues that the proposed
| solution is unworkable and would have adverse consequences,
| not that it would only partially work.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > Total fantasy to think you wouldn't fall afoul of free
| speech, both legally (in the US) and morally.
|
| Corporations don't have rights. Corporations don't have the
| right to free speech.
|
| Yes, I'm aware of the SCOTUS opinion on this issue--I'm saying
| SCOTUS is wrong on this.
|
| And no, granting corporations personhood isn't a viable
| approximation. We're discussing a case in this thread where
| granting corporations a right is drastically different from
| granting individuals rights.
|
| > Absolutely zero thought has been given to how to police the
| boundaries. Giving a paid speech? Free gifts for influencers?
| Rewards for signing up a friend?
|
| Your criticism is basically that OP didn't draft a full
| detailed legislation in a blog post. That's not how ideas get
| proposed on the internet and you know that.
|
| > Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what
| to buy. Advertising fulfils an important social role. Yes, I
| know it can be annoying/intrusive/creepy. "In our information-
| saturated world, ads manipulate, but they don't inform" is an
| evidence-free assertion.
|
| I agree that people don't magically know what to buy, but ads
| make that problem worse, not better. Ads cannot inform, because
| they don't come from an unbiased source and even in the rare
| cases where they tell the truth, they're leaving out important
| facts intentionally. You're basically saying, "People don't
| know what the truth is, so we need to let liars lie to them."
| The solution to lack of knowledge is truth, not lies.
|
| In the absence of advertising, independent third party reviews
| such as those provided by Consumer Reports would actually fill
| the need for consumer information.
| amelius wrote:
| Also, free speech isn't the same as free amplification of
| speech.
| dionidium wrote:
| > "In our information-saturated world, ads manipulate, but they
| don't inform" is an evidence-free assertion.
|
| It's worse than that in that it's just plainly wrong. I learn
| about useful products via advertising all the time -- so often,
| in fact, that I'm sort of bewildered that anybody could claim
| otherwise. We must be experiencing the world quite differently.
| vjk800 wrote:
| > * Total fantasy to think you wouldn't fall afoul of free
| speech, both legally (in the US) and morally.
|
| Some limits exist on advertising exist in most countries. Do
| they respect free speech?
|
| > * Absolutely zero thought has been given to how to police the
| boundaries. Giving a paid speech? Free gifts for influencers?
| Rewards for signing up a friend?
|
| Absolutely zero thought is never given on policing boundaries
| on anything. That's not how the legal system operates. All laws
| are approximations at best and grey areas get decided by courts
| on a case-by-case basis.
|
| > * Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what
| to buy. Advertising fulfils an important social role. Yes, I
| know it can be annoying/intrusive/creepy. "In our information-
| saturated world, ads manipulate, but they don't inform" is an
| evidence-free assertion.
|
| In my country, advertising alcohol is forbidden. Somehow I
| still manage to find interesting new beers to try year after
| year
| sdeframond wrote:
| > In my country, advertising alcohol is forbidden. Somehow I
| still manage to find interesting new beers to try year after
| year
|
| This is interesting. Alcohol companies a well known to bypass
| this prohibition by all possible means (product placement,
| influencers,...) and yet I find real benefits in it. It would
| possibly be similar if advertising was forbidden for
| everything
| Cpoll wrote:
| Tobacco advertisement is banned or heavily regulated in most of
| the world (including the U.S.).
|
| Free speech has a couple dozen exceptions like libel,
| incitement to violence, etc. And besides, it's not clear how it
| applies to corporations.
|
| "Free" gifts for influencers typically need to be disclosed.
| Otherwise it's just payola.
|
| Arguments like "policing the boundaries" can be applied to a
| lot of existing laws, so it's not particularly useful.
|
| > In our information-saturated world, ads manipulate, but they
| don't inform" is an evidence-free assertion.
|
| What information are you getting from a clip of a polar bear
| drinking a coke?
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| I hate advertising because it's nonconsensual, subconscious
| manipulation. When I see an ad for product X, I'm more likely to
| buy it in the store than product Y because there's artificially
| increased familiarity for it in my brain. If the purpose of
| advertising was to inform, you'd never see an ad for Coca Cola,
| since everybody on the planet knows about it already. The %0.01
| of advertising that informs me of a product that I might actually
| purchase can die overnight, and I'd not notice a difference,
| because I use adblockers and when I need something, I _search_
| for it on the internet, Google, Amazon, and the like. When I need
| reviews I turn to Reddit and HN.
|
| If advertising is a zero-sum game between companies competing for
| your eyeball-minutes, allocating double digits of their income to
| marketing departments, it's a net drain on the economy. If it's a
| positive-sum game for companies and you are purchasing more goods
| than you otherwise would because of the ads you see, it means you
| are purchasing stuff you don't need, and it means advertising is
| a way to funnel your money to companies through nonconsensual
| means, i.e theft. In reality it's a slightly positive sum game
| for companies.
|
| Advertising is cancerous in the sense that if there was no
| advertising, nobody needs to advertise, but if somebody is
| advertising and you are not, then you'll lose market share and
| die, so you advertise too and hence it spreads. It is parasitic
| in the sense that vast amounts of collective resources of society
| is spent on this redirecting-money-from-company-A-to-company-B
| scheme with no positive value generated.
|
| Political advertising undermines democracy. Ads have a huge
| influence on the outcome of modern elections. You need
| billionaires backing you to fund your campaign, and guess what?
| Those billionaires will have some special requests when you take
| the seat. Fair elections and leaders caring for the people are
| only possible in a world without political advertising.
|
| All arguments in favor of advertising are circular, they presume
| the current economy/society where everything is heavily dependent
| on advertising and then point out " _Look, but X wouldn't work
| without advertising!_ " In reality a world without advertising
| would look much different, and my hunch is it would be wealthier
| and with less inequality, too.
| andai wrote:
| From what I can tell, the problem isn't advertising so much as
| surveillance.
|
| Surveillance is much worse, and banning it also solves the worst
| aspects of advertising.
| bambax wrote:
| Although I almost never see any ads at all online thanks to
| uBlock Origin on all of my devices, I agree that making it
| illegal would be a net benefit for society. It would be hard! But
| worth it.
| nottorp wrote:
| What advertising should be made illegal?
|
| The spyware and bunch of blatant lies part?
|
| Or the new product discovery part?
|
| Is everyone forgetting there's a middle ground?
| boramalper wrote:
| For so many comments in this thread saying that it's impossible
| to make all advertising illegal, we can certainly start with
| making _personalised_ advertising illegal with all its invasive
| practices.
| defanor wrote:
| > It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public
| discourse.
|
| IIRC there is a Dilbert comic strip about that.
|
| > Clickbait [...] would become worthless overnight
|
| Advertisement is not the only incentive. E.g., the Veritasium
| YouTube channel's host explicitly switched to clickbait,
| explaining it by his intent to reach a wider audience. Another
| example is clickbait submission titles on HN, not all of which
| are for the sake of advertisement (unless you count HN
| submissions in general as advertisements themselves, of course).
|
| > When I say advertising, I also mean propaganda. Propaganda is
| advertising for the state
|
| Not necessarily for the state, the usual definition includes
| furthering of ideas in general. In more oppressive regimes,
| propaganda of certain ideas is actually banned, as it used to be
| in even more places ("heresy" and suchlike). Combined with
| selective enforcement, it is as good as banning all propaganda.
| It may be a particularly bad example of such a ban, but still an
| illustration of the dangers around it.
|
| I think a better path towards the world without (or almost
| without) commercial advertising is not via coercion, but as
| kaponkotrok mentioned in another comment, via education and
| public discussion (which may also be called "propaganda"),
| shifting social norms to make such advertisement less acceptable.
| People can make advertisements unprofitable if they will choose
| to: not just by ignoring them (including setting ad blockers),
| but also by intentionally preferring products not connected to
| unpleasant and shady tactics, including those beyond
| advertisement: slave labor and other human rights violations,
| unsustainable energy sources, global warming, animal cruelty,
| monopolies, proprietary or bloated software and hardware are some
| of the common examples. Social norms and such enforcement seem to
| be less brittle than laws are, and harder to turn into an
| oppression mechanism.
|
| Although, since I brought up monopolies and other issues, perhaps
| state agencies may also usefully assist with restriction of
| advertisement, as they do with those. Social norms and laws are
| not mutually exclusive, after all.
| basisword wrote:
| Silly idea. Some advertising is bad. Some is really bad. Other
| advertising is useful. I wouldn't know about half the gigs or
| exhibitions I go to and enjoy if it weren't for the
| advertisements throughout the city. There are many small local
| businesses I wouldn't know about (to my detriment) if it weren't
| for advertising. The internet as we know it never would have been
| built if it weren't for advertising.
|
| But there is a certain kind of advertising that is detrimental.
| My first thought is Amazon 'sponsored' products. Allowing
| companies to pay money to put inferior products at the top of
| search results is bad for society. Same goes for Google sponsored
| search results. Sponsored content in general is terrible. People
| that have gained your trust selling you things and not actually
| telling you they are being paid to do so. There are many many
| digital ads that would not be allowed IRL because they would be
| stopped for false advertising by regulators.
|
| Like most things in life these days, the problem is not the thing
| itself. The problem is the Wild West that is the internet where
| there is minimal regulation allowing people to lie, cheat and get
| away with it.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I suspect this proposal wouldn't be met well. Ignore the
| pachyderm in the shared living space (all the lovely money people
| make from advertising), but defining "what's an ad" gets sticky.
|
| For example, highly relevant PSAs and warnings could be
| considered "ads." They can be every bit as obnoxious as "penis
| pill" ads, but they convey information that may be of life and
| death importance.
|
| The placards outside professional offices are ads; possibly the
| oldest form of advertising.
|
| In-store signage are ads, and can cost sellers a lot of money.
|
| You could argue that "shelf-stackers," and "endcap displays"
| employed by supermarkets, are a form of advertising.
|
| Sales people rely on personal relationships, and get quite
| skilled at making every conversation they have, into a sales
| pitch (which can get annoying).
|
| Promotion is a very complex system, and often goes far beyond
| simple signage. For many businesses, it's a matter of life and
| death.
|
| People that run businesses probably can't live without them, and
| are willing to pay a pretty penny for ads.
|
| One thing that might be relevant, are "ad books," like the old-
| fashioned Yellow Pages, "pennysaver" papers, or the "brand
| books," used by designers. These are ads, but gathered into a
| place where they are expected, and actively sought out.
|
| In the last century, we often called variants of these,
| "catalogs."
| cluckindan wrote:
| If we make ads illegal, only criminals will advertise.
| ManlyBread wrote:
| It would be hilarious to have a criminal trying to goad me into
| buying a bucket of fried chicken.
| movpasd wrote:
| A lot of discussion here about where boundaries would be with
| free speech, how this would be implemented, specific details.
| But, as with any policy, this is not a binary "do it or don't".
| This is a dial that can be turned in a more libertarian or a more
| regulatory direction. (In fact, even this is simplistic: it's
| many hundreds of conceptually correlated dials.)
|
| The interesting question is whether we're happy with where the
| dial is right now, which direction we want to push it, and how
| fast --- and the underlying meaning of the article is that maybe
| we should be pushing it in the regulatory direction very fast
| indeed.
| ayaros wrote:
| As ads are getting crammed into more and more aspects of our
| lives both online and offline, what I find particularly creepy is
| there's been a push by advertisers and tech companies to
| normalize these practices to upcoming generations. It seems like
| we're getting pushed towards the status quo of Futurama where
| we'll have ads broadcast into our dreams... As is the case with
| idiocracy, that _wasn 't_ an instruction manaul. I can only hope
| we can push the Overton window back to a place where limitatons
| on advertising can at least be considered.
| jang07 wrote:
| what can be the alternate business model to serve services like
| instagram, youtube to such large no. of people???
| neric wrote:
| Does that mean paying for Facebook?
| seer wrote:
| The problem with all this is that consumerism seems to drive
| economic power.
|
| Particularly good advertisement in society is a cultural trait
| that makes it consume way more than it needs, driving individuals
| into debt, but that means way more business activity to capture
| that and then redirect all that human effort into actual power.
|
| Butan has no advertisements and people consider themselves quite
| happy, but the second China or India decide they want something
| from it, there is nothing it can actually do.
|
| Kinda like in the novel "the dispossessed" from Le Guin - the
| anarchist planet ultimately lives at the mercy of the capitalist
| one, and if policy changes (for example - Trump) then you are ...
| no more.
|
| So while I agree that ads are an unnecessary tax that should be
| banned, I can imagine a society that does could end up at the
| mercy of a society that doesn't, given a generation or two.
| simne wrote:
| This is totally bullshit. In USSR ALL enterprises was own by
| government, private property prohibited and many rich people
| killed or jailed, even churches transformed to form of museums,
| so advertisement become unnecessary and nearly disappeared.
|
| This was extremely ineffective society - because in such system
| people don't have any real motivation to grow and to become
| better.
|
| And this leads to society of fools - when in 1990s borders
| opened, many scammers from all the world, made fortunes on
| fooling people, who just used to sterile environment without even
| weak manipulation, so totally defenseless for really serious
| scam.
|
| Unfortunately such environment now, after 30 post-soviet years
| have extremely problems with economy.
|
| Imagine, we in Ukraine have thousands engineers unemployed, or
| working for less than general laborer.
|
| You may wonder, how this could happen. Answer - information
| inequality - engineer or any other professional know at least few
| times more than ordinary people (or from other specialty).
|
| Why information inequality is so important - because even in
| USSR, where govt tried to make totally controlled "planning"
| economy, have about million products on market, so to optimize
| production need to solve system of equations 1Mx1M size, which is
| even now semi-possible.
|
| In free market environment, complex of mechanisms "invisible hand
| of market", advertisement+entrepreneurs as
| intermediators+mechanisms of reputation, making market semi-
| optimal, so in real world have about 30% resources spend
| ineffective.
|
| But when soviet govt claimed to make 100% effectiveness, in
| reality, was about 300% ineffective spending, and that's why USSR
| fail - just because was ineffective. This have many causes -
| first I already said - people was not motivated to grow anything;
| from lack of motivation appeared technical weakness - unmotivated
| people don't invent new things and not eager to adopt abroad
| technologies (because this also need lot of hard work); tech
| weakness leads to lack of modern computing infrastructure, so
| when USSR government dreamed about modern computers, could have
| only outdated hardware, steal from West (or got via grey-black
| schemes which is just other name of steal).
|
| And after USSR fail, several directors of huge soviet
| enterprises, used scam schemes to become private owners of these
| enterprises, and now they brake reforms, to save their fortunes
| and power. And for small business need more than 10 years to
| gather so much resources and reputation, to become enough
| powerful to run reforms. So many exUSSR countries stuck in
| between totalitarian and democracy (in reality I see slow motion,
| but seen next fact in many cases impossible to say, if it is
| positive or negative, or just nothing significant), and nobody
| could predict, how many years will spent in this extremely slow
| motion (or I prefer to name it hang in the air).
|
| So, if we made advertising illegal, huge enterprises will got
| huge advantage over small business, and will disappear
| concurrency, so richest people will become rich forever and
| poorest people will become poor forever.
|
| And must admit, I sometimes don't like advertisement, but it is
| required by market, so we need to invent some other measures to
| make advertisement more ethical.
| ujkiolp wrote:
| This thread is hilarious. And proof that hn is a silo. This
| article is somehow attracting the simple minds. So absorbed in
| your own lives that you'd rather ban an entire industry then
| develop self control?
|
| I'm also realizing this is cultural and symptomatic of the West -
| get yourself some core ideals and stop falling for clickbait.
| Sounds simplistic? This is how you sound when you say "just ban
| it"
|
| Thank god none of you are in charge of anything so all you can do
| is post here - good.
| jrwiegand wrote:
| It's interesting, I have been saying a much less intelligible
| version of this from observing my children. They have been
| exposed to services without advertising, and as soon as they see
| an ad... "Another commercial!!!". A part of me hopes their entire
| generation can develop a disdain for advertising based on the
| negatives they can see in their parents.
| ddmichael wrote:
| That's the best thing I've read in months if not years.
| jopsen wrote:
| It's fun thought, but probably also scary one.
|
| The we have any robustness towards propaganda/ads is that we're
| being bombarded with contradicting arguments.
|
| In a society without would be more susceptible to propaganda.
| Just just we outlaw it, just doesn't stop bad actors.
|
| That there are lots of places we forbid advertising. Bill boards
| along the road. Content targeted minors.
|
| We are also lots of advertising we could outlaw: regulated
| medicin, loans, gambling.
|
| We could regulate what ads can say: products must be sold
| advertised price (fine print not allowed).
|
| Lots of things could we that don't outlaw all advertising. Look
| around world you'll find many examples such regulations.
| Lutger wrote:
| Nice. Advertisements is one of the first things I studied
| seriously, when still in high school almost thirty years ago. I
| remember arriving at the very same conclusion, even though Big
| (AD) Tech had yet to arrive. Any hypothetical rational and
| enlightened society in the future - think Star Trek - would _of
| course_ not have any advertisement. It just doesn 't make sense.
| It is a compromise, an evolutionary transition, like fascism,
| human sacrifices or settling conflicts with a duel of pistols.
|
| If we - as in humanity - are still there in 500 to 1000 years,
| advertisement may be taught in a history class as one of the
| barbaric practices of the 21th century. Maybe some scholars will
| be able to relate it to world hunger, climate change and genocide
| with a mathematical precision that we are not yet capable of.
| That is a timeline I love to think about.
|
| Of course, slaving away in the asteroid mines for Bezos inc.,
| looking at hyper sexualized ads for a trip to Mars is equally
| likely.
| lvass wrote:
| If ads just vanished, that would be great, but making it illegal
| ought to do more harm than good. For one, a lot of ad money would
| be routed to shills, which are far more pernicious and have
| already infested otherwise great platforms like Reddit.
| Everything would turn to crap and no adblocker would help you. An
| ad ban would make every influencer profile instantly worthless,
| unless they decide to shill, which they're probably already doing
| anyway.
|
| Also big tech would be incentivized to sell even more user data,
| as their business would still mostly exist, either via
| subscriptions, or through the now even more profitable user data
| market with more expensive targeted shilling.
| NumberWangMan wrote:
| I have thought about whether banning advertising would be a
| good idea prior to stumbling onto this article. I'm not saying
| there would be no downsides, but I think there would be a TON
| of benefits as well.
|
| Consider that advertising is mostly (not 100%) a zero-sum game.
| It's not zero sum when it helps to inform people of products
| and services that would make their life better, that they would
| willingly have sought out and purchased if not for their lack
| of knowledge that the product existed.
|
| However, there are lots of extremely common situations where
| advertising is just a net drain on society:
|
| * when it encourages people to buy things they don't need,
| exploiting our monkey brains' desire for the seratonin that
| accompanies buying stuff.
|
| * when everyone already knows what's out there in the market,
| and it's just massive empires fighting for market share, like
| coke and pepsi, or various car companies, trying to keep their
| products in people's minds. They're just playing tug-of-war and
| very little changes.
|
| * again like with soda, or cigarettes, or vapes, or fast food
| and junk food, where the products being advertised are actually
| worse for your health than the default alternative (drinking
| tap water, not smoking, cooking food at home). Perhaps people
| enjoy these things, but there is a hedonic treadmill effect
| where you quickly get used to them and are no better off than
| if you just avoided them.
|
| * when advertising makes public spaces less pleasant to be in.
| And when it's distracting to drivers, increasing the chances of
| an accident.
|
| * when advertising makes websites hard to use
|
| * when the advertising industry vacuums up tons of talented
| people with the attraction of the money they would make, who
| might otherwise have gone into careers that are more beneficial
| to the rest of society
|
| I don't doubt that shills and astroturfing would still exist or
| possibly get worse if you did nothing about it -- but you could
| ban that too. You wouldn't catch everyone, but the threat of
| punishment would make it much less likely for people to be
| willing to participate in that sort of stuff.
|
| I do think that we would need a replacement for the small,
| actual valuable thing that advertising provides, which is
| providing information. I think it would be great to allow sorts
| of "ad indexes" or "product indexes" which are websites
| specifically dedicated to aggregating information about all the
| products available in a given market. Maybe search engines are
| already good enough for this purpose. Honestly, when I want to
| learn about what's out there because I'm getting into a new
| hobby or something, I just do the google-reddit trick like
| searching for "reddit good value electronic piano" and reading
| about what other people like.
|
| Likewise for politics, it would be fantastic if every election
| had a website where candidates could submit their policy
| platform and potentially a video or two (though I like the idea
| of JUST text for this) where you can read about them. It's hard
| enough to find out about candidates for local elections
| already.
|
| So I'm very much in favor of trashing the whole thing. I think
| it's a case where advertising benefits those who do it (and in
| very rare cases, consumers) but mostly just has massive
| negative externalities. Classic case for either banning it, or
| putting a steep tax. Usually I'd prefer the latter (as in the
| case of carbon taxes), but I think taxing ads would be very
| complicated and the tax rate would probably instantly make most
| ads vanish anyway, so I think a ban makes more sense.
| lvass wrote:
| I definitely agree with ads being bad in principle. But
| banning shills is an even worse idea than banning ads,
| because you absolutely, under no circumstance, can correctly
| identify those. Any "replacement for the small, actual
| valuable thing that advertising provides, which is providing
| information", is bound to become infested in ways you cannot
| control. Escalate this idea further to solve the issues you
| created and you would end up banning speech or trade.
| photonthug wrote:
| There is of course absolutely zero chance of this happening. But
| I didn't actually expect that amongst _people_ rather than
| lobbyists /corporations the very idea would actually be
| considered controversial, subversive or _offensive_. I 'd have
| brought popcorn if I expected this incredible display of mental
| gymnastics. I guess I assumed that even people who are forced
| into the situation where ads are their bread and butter directly
| or indirectly still know about the damage and think the whole
| thing is gross. (I've been there and done that myself..)
|
| Now I'm thinking of the "neighborhood beautification projects" in
| Abbey's Monkeywrench Gang though where the guys light up the
| cutting torches to cut down any billboards that get too close to
| the Grand Canyon. The fear of course is that police might drive
| by, since if you think about it the activity itself is really
| _reversing vandalism_ more than anything else. Apparently today
| you would have to worry about mobs of concerned citizens tearing
| you to pieces for taking away their right to be advertised to? I
| 'm so amazed by the very idea of this I can't even get that
| disgusted or angry about it. What else are these people up to,
| how do they live and what else do they think? Like, if the best
| food was determined by ad budgets, do they wonder what to have
| for dinner ever, and what's the most gourmet cuisine in that
| world? Best candidate for the election is the one with the
| biggest ad budget? Channel surfing to get away from the annoying
| so called "content" that prevent you from seeing ads? I feel a
| bit like I've discovered alien life or something
| cratermoon wrote:
| Making advertising illegal is probably not going to pass first
| amendment muster in the US (though god knows how much longer
| we'll have meaningful constitutional rights at all) but at one
| point there were laws against blatant misrepresentation, lying,
| and deception. Any such laws still on the books have long since
| ceased to be meaningfully enforced.
| sebastian_z wrote:
| It is an interesting thought. What could be new business models
| for sites that currently rely on third party advertising? It
| seems big publishers are increasingly moving to first party
| advertising. But that seems difficult for small publishers.
|
| While advertising messages may not be themselves particularly
| important for free speech and can be even detrimental to it,
| e.g., propaganda, sites themselves disseminate speech and are
| often third-party ad-financed. What could be a good business
| model for them (other than direct payments)?
| sanbor wrote:
| Taking the "organic certification" approach, there could be a
| "ad-free certification" for products and companies. This could be
| a first step towards an ad-free world.
| AlienRobot wrote:
| I get that you all hate ads
|
| And you hate paywalls
|
| And you don't subscribe to newsletters
|
| And you don't buy merch
|
| And you don't donate $5 to Wikipedia
|
| And you haven't bought Winrar
|
| And you think copyright should be illegal
|
| But maybe you should consider the second order effects
| mproud wrote:
| This would be an insanely cool premise for a short story!
|
| We'd probably have more underground free papers with clever
| writing, littered with tons ads in them, circulating around in
| the black market.
|
| But there would likely also be a lot of bad "telephone," literal
| word of mouth, but the message might get lost, turning into
| disinformation.
|
| On the other hand, there could be organized, sanctioned markets
| where you're allowed to hock wares and show off product catalogs.
| mikestaub wrote:
| It's impossible to enforce a law like this. The real solution is
| to create personal AI filters for each person that reads all the
| data for the user, filters out anything that doesn't enrich the
| user, and hides the rest. A general-purpose AI-enabled spam
| filter for your entire digital life.
| rsolva wrote:
| In theory, I'm all for this. In practice, we have to take smaller
| steps towards this radical change and see how far we can actually
| get in real life.
|
| In Norway, we have a total ban on advertising on certain
| products, like alcohol and tobacco. We also have strict laws
| regulating advertising towards children and political messaging
| on TV and radio.
|
| There is only one problem; these laws where made before the
| digital age, so they have been sidelined. Political parties buy
| ads on Facebook and Insta like there is no tomorrow and children
| are constantly exposed to ads on social media. Only the ban on
| alcohol and tobacco is somewhat successful.
|
| The right next move would be to ban peronalized ads (ie tracking
| of personal data). This is the one factor that has made the
| advertising industry (with Google and Meta at the top) go
| completely of the rails.
| b3ing wrote:
| We'd probably go into a recession, there is a lot of money in
| advertising and marketing
| diabllicseagull wrote:
| we could start by banning digital profiling and personalized ads
| entirely. the remaining ads could work with a pull model, and not
| this endless push model it's currently in. if I am in need of a
| service or goods, I should initiate the intake of ads, not the
| other way around.
| christophilus wrote:
| I hate ads. I hate them everywhere I see them, but if you want to
| start a business, and you can't advertise, how do you possibly
| stand a chance against entrenched incumbents? Banning
| advertisements is regulatory capture taken to an extreme.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| There can still be product catalogues, people will still shop
| in person or on online resellers. You can still start off with
| a limited time discount so people can try your product. None of
| these need advertisement, they are organic ways of getting the
| word out there.
| DudeOpotomus wrote:
| To measure attention while confusing it with intent, is at the
| root of everything wrong with today's society.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Maybe a good initial step would be to tighten up false
| advertising laws:
|
| Make it illegal to make statements that are not objectively true.
| E.g. you can't say that your product is "the best", you can only
| say specifically how it is better.
|
| Put restrictions on advertising an idealized version of a product
| and then selling a lesser version. E.g. the difference between
| what fast food ads show versus what you get. I'm sure it would be
| difficult to completely fix that since it's so subjective, but we
| could probably get incremental improvements.
| Loughla wrote:
| They already do that. Is always in TINY print or they use
| weasel words that are meaningless in common use, but defendable
| in court.
|
| Improved health is a good one. It doesn't really mean anything.
| harimau777 wrote:
| That's exactly the sort of thing that I think should be
| banned. Particularly the meaningless terms like "improved
| health".
| spencerflem wrote:
| Ads don't even bother with that anymore. Theye pure id- make
| something memorable so you associate something with thinking
| about their product. "All happy families go to Disney" style.
|
| These are often lies too but its the subtext not the text
| programjames wrote:
| I consider it false advertising to not tell me the _drawbacks_
| of your product compared to your competitors. I shouldn 't have
| to look up every competitor to find your car is the only one
| without a steering wheel, even if it has heated seats.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| I agree with this article but wish it had more facts and figures
| backing it up rather than vibes and adjectives.. bad faith actors
| may be malnourished by lack of ad money to prop up their
| sensationalism, but there are still platforms like patreon or
| substack(not advocating to destroy these platforms). Without
| solid evidence I can't make the logical leap that advertising
| alone causes this.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| How would that work for physical shops, restaurants etc.? No
| illuminated signs allowed? No products or services visibly
| displayed? Everything has to be invisible in the streets?
| xandrius wrote:
| Good questions go get started, we can begin with the obvious
| and figure out the details later.
|
| But yes, to me illuminated signs are wasteful to my attention
| and to environment, so out they would go.
| hvs wrote:
| I find it ironic that there's a big "Follow @index@simone.org via
| your Fediverse account (like...)" over this article that I can't
| seem to close and covers up part of the article.
| notnullorvoid wrote:
| I love the general idea, but banning all forms of paid
| advertising seems a step to far. That encompass a lot, and
| enforcing it would be near impossible. There's also clear areas
| where it could have a negative impact, like for public transport
| that relies on providing ad placement.
|
| I don't see a problem with criminalizing big ad companies, ad
| markets, and ad middlemen. I think that would solve a good chunk
| of the issue.
| linsomniac wrote:
| What if advertising were 100% truthful and straightforward. Like
| in that movie "The Invention of Lying" with the scene that shows
| a close up of the side of a bus with "Pepsi" on it, then as it
| pulls away the full advert reads "Pepsi... For when then don't
| have Coke".
| dribblecup wrote:
| Don't ban advertising but also don't treat commercial advertising
| as pure free speech.
|
| For instance, for false claims, make it easier to drag a
| corporation into court and get legal remedies commensurate with
| the damage or potential damage caused by their dishonesty.
|
| Right now the bias is towards unfettered, dishonest and
| psychologically manipulative commercial "free speech" with no
| guardrails the average person can enforce.
|
| So, saying "we think this is the best detergent ever" is fine.
| It's clearly an opinion. But false or generally misleading
| claims, especially those that cover-up the potential dangers of
| the product, could lead to punitive damages sufficient to be a
| deterrent.
| swayvil wrote:
| Illegalize advertising. Then intensely monitor every conversation
| everywhere always for advertizational content.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| USA would rather ban abortion than advertising
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| My ad blocker blocked 4 tracker scripts on this website.
|
| This website is about blocking advertising because they're often
| predatory and invasive.
|
| > Outlawing advertising would help protect and reinvigorate our
| minds and democracy.
|
| Practice what you preach. Or don't, if you just want to make a
| quick-hit blog post.
| piuantiderp wrote:
| In True Communism (tm) there would be no need for advertising!
| Because anything people could want they would already have!!!!
| floriferous wrote:
| This is such an insanely good and important idea, that it feels
| inevitable that we'll eventually do it, probably in the next
| decades/centuries.
|
| Probably one of the hardest new laws we'll ever have to
| implement.
| zzzeek wrote:
| so if Simone.org here paid someone to help build this website of
| theirs, where the posts ends with "Sign up for Kodo Simone" and a
| short blurb why the blog is valuable, that would be illegal,
| right? Because they paid someone to create an advertisement. This
| post claims that "community networks" are fine but where is the
| line between that and a paid advertisement - if I paid someone to
| print my business cards vs. paid them to put the card on a board?
| or to put up flyers around town for my band? "advertisement" is
| so vague I just dont understand this proposal.
| phtrivier wrote:
| You don't need to ban it, you need to find mechanism to prevent
| the worst effects.
|
| In civilized countries, this could be done by taxation (limit the
| mass) and regulation (limit the excesses.)
|
| Use the country of the advertisment target audience to decide
| which juridiction applies.
|
| I'm pretty sure advertisers have to be aware of the country their
| targeting, given that they know me better than my spouse.
| Liftyee wrote:
| Is the "follow me" bar that moves with (and covers some of) the
| third paragraph and can't be dismissed intended? Either way, it
| struck me as a little ironic given the content of the article.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "What if we banned all advertising?"
|
| This sounds like someone who was born intoo an era of internet
| advertising. As opposed to someone who has been expoosed to
| adevrtising over many forms of media, the internet being only a
| recent addition.
|
| The early internet had no advertising. Commercial use of the
| computer network against the rules.
|
| The web-based companies comprising "Big Tech", while they
| dominate today's internet by acting as allegedly "necessary"
| intermediaries and conducting surveillance, appear to have no
| viable business model to stay "big" in this scenario: where the
| computer network does not allow advertising, let alone commercial
| use.
|
| Thus, the question "What if we banned all advertising" sounds
| extreme, unrealistic, the product of myopia, all-or-nothing
| thinking. Advertising will always be "legal". But historically
| man has regulated where it can be disseminated/placed.
|
| A more interesting question might be "What if we had a computer
| network where advertising was prohibited or limited". About 35
| years ago we did. Then the rules against commercial use were
| removed. Now people are complaining. People who never used the
| network in the time before advertising was allowed.
|
| Imagine what it would be like to have a computer network without
| advertising using the computer and networking technology we have
| today.
|
| Maybe this network could be built on top of the internet, as an
| overlay.
|
| Make no mistake, there will always be computer internetworks that
| allow advertising. But the first ones didn't. And there could be
| ones in the future that don't.
| fdb345 wrote:
| advertising should be illegal. its lying propaganda which is now
| utilising brainwashing techniques
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I think we could actually start the path to this by making
| unethical advertising illegal. Here's kind of what I'm thinking:
| no forced advertising. All ads that steal time away from you
| (like forcing people to watch ads before accessing something)
| would be illegal. The reasoning being that you're essentially
| stealing an infinitely valuable resource: people's time. It's
| unethical for ad agencies to steal such a valuable resource for
| such a meager reason.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| The global economy would fracture, is what would happen. A good
| chunk of the top performing stocks would disappear, affecting
| banking, retirement, housing, just everything. Most of the
| communication channels people use today would disappear. The
| online tools even non-ad-businesses use to function would stop,
| so those businesses would grind to a halt. News would disappear.
| Products would stop getting made. (US) Politicians would freak
| the hell out because now they don't know how to get elected. It
| would be a categorical economic and social disaster.
| narcraft wrote:
| Entrenched incumbent big businesses (others than those selling
| advertising) love this proposal
| account-5 wrote:
| For me personally advertising doesn't work. I've never bought or
| done anything because of an advert. If all ads stopped tomorrow
| nothing would change for me. Advertising clearly works out it
| wouldn't be such a big industry, I just don't get it though.
| metadope wrote:
| The crime is broadcasting without a license.
|
| We are all guilty, making waves, swamping the spectrum with
| antagonistic signals that often interfere with each other.
|
| We have too many signals in our society. The resulting noise, the
| cacophony of lies, are echoed and amplified and evolve into
| perpetual crosstalk and distortion.
|
| Too many signals transmitting too frequently with too much power.
|
| We can't really outlaw advertising.
|
| But we could limit and license spectrum, like we do with radio
| frequencies. We could legislate the broadcasting and publication
| of information, based on that extended simile: regulating
| 'antenna power' and the airwave spectrum... Holding any
| broadcaster responsible for the public welfare of their
| listeners.
|
| We share the infosphere. These channels are theoretically owned
| by us, the aggregate public. Certainly we are all swimming in the
| same ocean.
|
| We might want to agree on some boundaries, and even licensing,
| for broadcasters.
| blobbers wrote:
| Unfortunately, the next question becomes "is consumer reports
| considered an ad" etc.
|
| It becomes a question of what truly is an ad?
|
| That said I appreciate this sort of thought; it would even be
| nice for it to be implemented, but whether it could be enforced
| is another question. At that point it then becomes a question of
| who you allow to advertise.
|
| For a long time, hedge funds were not allowed to solicit
| investments publicly under rule 502c of reg D.
|
| I could see grounds to restrict things further; I'm sick of
| restless leg syndrome drug treatment ads...
| miki123211 wrote:
| Advertising is a tax on the rich.
|
| It subsidizes basically all modern entertainment, from the
| filmmaking and sports industries (through TV Shows and sports
| broadcasts, respectively), to musicians and amateur filmmakers
| (through Spotify and Youtube).
|
| The costs of advertising are ultimately passed down to consumers
| in the form of higher prices for products and services, not
| unlike a VAT or sales tax. Because rich people spend more money
| than the poor (citation needed), they end up paying a lot more of
| this "tax" while getting the same amount of entertainment for it.
|
| Targeted advertising only exacerbated these dynamics. Because
| high-spenders are very desirable customers to have, companies can
| now demand more money for the ability to target them, which turns
| advertising from a linear to a progressive tax.
|
| Advertising turned the internet into a sort of public commons,
| with no government intervention and the inevitable inefficiencies
| and inflexibilities that come with those. It gave us free, high-
| quality video and voice calls to anywhere across the world, free
| unlimited texting, including picture messaging and group
| conversations, free video hosting for everybody, regardless of
| scale, free music (through Youtube, Spotify and the radio), with
| at least some compensation to artists, free movies and TV shows
| (on free-to-air TV as well as through services like Pluto),
| excellent free educational content (e.g. 3b1b, university
| lecturers hosted on Youtube at no charge), as well as cheaper
| entertainment overall through ad-supported tiers.
|
| I think framing things this way is important when discussing
| advertising regulation. Maybe we want more cheap groceries, don't
| care about cheaper luxury cars and don't mind less free
| entertainment, so maybe we should ban grocery ads and encourage
| more Mercedes ads. Maybe we're fine with less free entertainment
| if it gets us fewer alcoholics, so we ban ads for alcohol. Those
| are tradeoffs worth thinking about, perhaps tradeoffs worth
| making, but _they are tradeoffs_ , and it is important to be
| conscious of that.
| habosa wrote:
| I would love if we could just make unavoidable advertising
| illegal. What I mean by unavoidable are things like billboards,
| bus stop ads, ads on the plane preceding the safety
| demonstration, ads in a train station, etc.
|
| I'm very fine with ads on private spaces. In a guitar magazine, a
| few ads for new music equipment actually makes the product better
| and is a win for everyone.
|
| I understand that this distinction has a gray area, but we could
| start with the black and white cases (Vermont has tried)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-06 23:01 UTC)