zlacker

[return to "What if we made advertising illegal?"]
1. gcp123+Cj[view] [source] 2025-04-05 20:15:16
>>smnrg+(OP)
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”.

◧◩
2. Ferret+lt[view] [source] 2025-04-05 21:49:58
>>gcp123+Cj
> 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.

◧◩◪
3. jongjo+tw[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:20:07
>>Ferret+lt
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.

◧◩◪◨
4. PaulDa+Ew[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:21:37
>>jongjo+tw
> 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?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. stubis+HJ[view] [source] 2025-04-06 01:04:29
>>PaulDa+Ew
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.
[go to top]