zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
Maybe a good initial step would be to tighten up false advertising laws:

Make it illegal to make statements that are not objectively true. E.g. you can't say that your product is "the best", you can only say specifically how it is better.

Put restrictions on advertising an idealized version of a product and then selling a lesser version. E.g. the difference between what fast food ads show versus what you get. I'm sure it would be difficult to completely fix that since it's so subjective, but we could probably get incremental improvements.

>>harima+zJ1
They already do that. Is always in TINY print or they use weasel words that are meaningless in common use, but defendable in court.

Improved health is a good one. It doesn't really mean anything.

>>Loughl+UJ1
That's exactly the sort of thing that I think should be banned. Particularly the meaningless terms like "improved health".

>>harima+UM1
But that's almost impossible. If the law says that all statements made MUST be true (which it kind of already does, by the way), companies will exclusively use weasel phrases to avoid any lawsuit. Otherwise, when you're trying to sell phlaborivin and bill it as a cure for cancer, when you find the one patient that doesn't respond to treatment, you're screwed.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that saying true things is what we already require. Human nature will pervert that system and follow the letter of the law; that's the literal system we have now.