zlacker

Bans cost money to enforce, while diminishing personal choice and responsibility. Why not spend that money on education instead? I've not had an ad in my home or on my mobile devices for well over a decade, and I've spent exactly zero on additional hardware to make that happen. It takes less than 10 minutes to configure a new device to be completely ad-free. I won't purchase anything that can't be configured to be free of ads, including smart TVs and iPhones. I still watch whatever content I want on my TV via HDMI from a PC. If our governments are going to be involved, their focus should be on teaching people how to do what people like me do. It's not difficult.

>>34679+(OP)
How do you prevent yourself or others from seeing banner/commercials around the city? Some cities are full of it. Just because you removed it from your phone or PC, it doesn't mean that there are no people who are affected by it by watching TV or while walking/driving around the city.

>>34679+(OP)
I’m fairly pro-market, certainly more than most people. And I’ll agree that bans cost money, but it’s unclear how much for this specific instance. We may also “save” money for taxpayers who avoided sports betting losses because it was never shoved in their face (because the ads are banned).

I would also guess that banning an ad is cheaper than banning something like “dancing in public.” One is easy and affects few people or entities directly (basically the companies that want to advertise their sports betting business and those that can host it), while the other is impossible to truly ban because you’d need an army of police or a high tech surveillance state (which probably still cannot institute a full ban).

>>34679+(OP)
I think there’s an argument that behavioral change is much more difficult that just ingesting the information. (And I’m talking about people who want to change, not some nefarious change instituted by someone else or an institution). Think of how many people want to lose weight but struggle. It’s not usually from the lack of education; there are psychological, social, and environmental impediments to change.

I think the “all it takes is the right information” model lacks a nuanced understanding of human behavior.

>>34679+(OP)
It’s hard to ad block live sports.

>>bumby+A7
I also mentioned personal choice and responsibility. If someone doesn't want to change, why should we attempt to force them? It's not likely to have the effect you desire.

I think the "all it takes is a government ban" model lacks a nuanced understanding of human behavior. Cannabis is a prime example.

To be clear, I'm not advocating a solution for all of society's ills. I'm advocating a path toward the goals we all share. That path may be longer and more difficult to traverse, but it's my belief that it'll lead us closer to where we want to go.

>>34679+Kb
>belief that it'll lead us closer to where we want to go.

That just sounds like a hypothesis (ie unfounded conjecture). Meanwhile, the counterclaim at least has a basis in empirical results. We should craft policy based on how people actually behave, not in how we wish they did.

I get that HN skews towards libertarian. My issue is that that the libertarian idea of how people operate is an idealist’s fantasy and not rooted in the real world.

>>34679+Kb
But didn't we not have this problem only a few short years ago?

What changed?

>>34679+(OP)
If you watch a football (English premier league) match then you'll see that not only are there gambling ads at the side of the pitch, but the players are running around wearing gambling adverts.