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. margal+Uu[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:04:29
>>Ferret+lt
> 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.

◧◩◪◨
4. abraca+Ay[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:43:14
>>margal+Uu
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. chgs+Mz[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:56:59
>>abraca+Ay
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. roenxi+5F[view] [source] 2025-04-05 23:53:57
>>chgs+Mz
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. idle_z+pG[view] [source] 2025-04-06 00:14:27
>>roenxi+5F
My understanding is that our success was largely down to the Marshal Plan. The claim that it's due to legal quirks sounds dubious.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. bakuni+g11[view] [source] 2025-04-06 05:38:00
>>idle_z+pG
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.

[go to top]