zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
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.

>>hedaye+b2
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...