zlacker

[return to "What if we made advertising illegal?"]
1. toomim+12[view] [source] 2025-04-05 18:15:37
>>smnrg+(OP)
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 rosé 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?

◧◩
2. imiric+77[view] [source] 2025-04-05 18:43:15
>>toomim+12
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.

◧◩◪
3. econ40+ka[view] [source] 2025-04-05 19:00:09
>>imiric+77
Does CNN, Fox News, ABC, New York Times and CBS use money to endorse candidates on air? Is that advertising?
◧◩◪◨
4. ericjm+Xa[view] [source] 2025-04-05 19:04:36
>>econ40+ka
Who would think it's not advertising?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. econ40+mb[view] [source] 2025-04-05 19:07:34
>>ericjm+Xa
So these news networks would be banned too?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Ukv+3d[view] [source] 2025-04-05 19:18:51
>>econ40+mb
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. econ40+ud[view] [source] 2025-04-05 19:22:05
>>Ukv+3d
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."

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Henchm+oi[view] [source] 2025-04-05 20:05:10
>>econ40+ud
They’re endorsing candidates to sell more newspapers or more airtime for advertisers. How is that not “in exchange for money”?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. theamk+Bz[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:53:31
>>Henchm+oi
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?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. Henchm+sL[view] [source] 2025-04-06 01:24:39
>>theamk+Bz
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.

[go to top]