zlacker

> Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.

Journalists exist.

The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products. Companies can also promote a product by sending it to reviewers.

So ads are not the only way to inform consumers, and the benefits IMO don't outweigh the cost.

>>Sebast+(OP)
There are a very few areas where there are good reviewers. Sadly most "reviewers" just repeat marketing materials, read stats from the box, and talk about themselves.

>>Sebast+(OP)
> The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products.

In the same sentence, you give a possible solution and the reason why it wouldn't work.

Ban ads and companies are going to pay more and more for sponsored content to the point you can't differentiate what is legit from what is not.

>>auciss+fH
Sponsored content should be considered an ad too and banned in this scenario.

Many “influencers” would have to go back to being amateurs. That’s ok. Some would accept backhanders, but they risk prosecution, which is actually possible [0].

[0] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/government-orders-maori-infl...

>>auciss+fH
I'd expect the law to broadly define an ad as any message, where the author has a conflict of interest.

This would also include down propaganda on social media.

We could then work backwards to define exceptions such as politicians speaking in moderated debates, signage in shops, etc...

Defining this correctly will be difficult, but that's the case with any law. GDPR was watered down, and I'm still glad it's there.

>>Sebast+tY
How do you expect influencers to exist if they can't take money from advertisers?

>>bagacr+vA2
If they provide something of value to their audience, they can take money from their audience, in exchange for that value. If they do not provide value for their audience, them ceasing to exist is not a loss for society.

>>bagacr+vA2
Ads don't pay for anything. You pay for ads.

The cash flow is: you -> merchant -> manufacturer -> advertising department -> google -> influencer

So if ads go away, theres two scenarios:

A: the influencer was worth your money and you pay him directly

B: he's not worth your money

I know, I'm making quite a few assumptions about how the market will correct, so I will also point that many Twitch-Streamer and YouTube channels already are financed through crowdfunding. It's not unrealistic that people will pay for good content.