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. Aeolun+PI[view] [source] 2025-04-06 00:49:31
>>Ferret+lt
I think the article mentions banning “sold advertising”, which seems like a fair way to go about it. You can still advertise your own stuff, but you cannot pay a marketplace to do it for you any more. Advertising would by necessity become a lot more local.
◧◩◪◨
4. cybera+uN[view] [source] 2025-04-06 01:53:35
>>Aeolun+PI
How would I advertise my app? Or my TV brand?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Tempes+xO[view] [source] 2025-04-06 02:08:15
>>cybera+uN
Reputable review sites are better than random advertisements
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. etempl+2P[view] [source] 2025-04-06 02:17:29
>>Tempes+xO
How do those sites make money if advertising doesn’t exist?

A major challenge in journalism is because of the collapse in value of banner ads. No one but the very largest newspapers have sustainable businesses in the United States and they only do because of the critical mass they have reached with subscribers.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. halper+j31[view] [source] 2025-04-06 06:16:10
>>etempl+2P
I subscribe to a magazine that publishes tests and reviews of everything from lawn fertiliser to spices, via vacuums and mobile phones. It costs money and I trust that they are not bribed.

It seems rather certain an end to advertising would mean the death of lots of low-quality "media".

[go to top]