zlacker

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+(OP)
How do you expect influencers to exist if they can't take money from advertisers?

>>bagacr+2C1
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+2C1
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.