zlacker

>>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?

>>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.

>>imiric+77
> 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.

>>timewi+Yp
The line doesn't matter, because advertising is protected by the First Amendment.

>>tptace+lr
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.

>>snackb+xQ
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.

>>tptace+XQ
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.