zlacker

paid advertisement is easier to define, I think. If entity A pays entity B to show/tell me something, that's an ad.

>>Retr0i+(OP)
So paid actors in movies are ads? They are paid for by the production company.

Presumably we want to keep paid actors, but then the loop hole is that Procter & Gamble becomes a media production company.

That's actually close to how things used to be eg in the US.

>>Retr0i+(OP)
So when say Comcast owns a sports team and runs videos promoting the idea of buying a ticket to see that sports team it wouldn't be an ad because Comcast didn't pay itself?

I'm all for banning whole forms of advertisements (ex. Billboards) that don't actually educate the consumer about the product. But _all_ advertisements is too knee-jerk.

>>Retr0i+(OP)
Banning third party advertisers seems like it’s giving a huge advantage to large businesses that can afford their own in house ad departments

>>Retr0i+(OP)
What is considered payment? Is that just money? Some advertisements could be paid for with goods services or favors. Which of those do we ban? Is proselyting religion advertising?

>>eru+e
The actors in a movie aren't the ones delivering the content to me.

>>whall6+y
> What is considered payment?

Bribery laws, SEC insider trading/collusion stuff...there's many existing examples for definitions for that, when the law doesn't want something to be for sale.

>>theore+x
It's true. Large businesses have unfair advantages in general, and I think we should discourage large businesses from existing, too.

>>eru+e
Procter & Gamble is welcome to become a media production company, but they can't push their media by paying for distribution - any paid distribution is advertising. Instead, distributors have to want to distribute the content because they think their audience will be interested in consuming it - a high bar to hit if the main purpose of your media is to push a product.

Paid actors, and for example company representatives, do count as acting on behalf of the company and therefore don't count as paid advertising. But, whatever medium they are talking to has to be an unpaid medium. A company representative (or paid actor) talking about a product in an interview is okay if the interviewer / distributor is not being paid to host the interview. (or if the interviewer / distributor is the company itself - that's also allowed).

Does that give massive companies an advantage? I would argue not really, because it creates massive overheads for pushing advertisement content, and since you aren't allowed to pay for distribution, it means that people have to be interesting in consuming your content of their own volition instead of other content that isn't trying to push products.

>>lesuor+g
Does public service announcement get exemption?

How about health ad ("Smoking kills") ?

How about mentioning a product in health ad (Smoking kills. Nicotine patches help you quit smoking)?

Traditionally, the government setup some regulatory body to oversee these kind of exemptions. These body often corrupt over time. Is a corrupted regulatory body better than no exemptions allowed?

Do we want the legal text cover all cases and become so dense that nobody can comprehend? Or do we want some simple rules and live with the possible unintended consequences?

and the most important question : People hate changes and some industries need to rethink their own business. How could we get people agrees on this in a democratic setting?

>>Taek+j3
> Procter & Gamble is welcome to become a media production company, but they can't push their media by paying for distribution - any paid distribution is advertising.

I'm a bit confused.

When Amazon pays the postal service to send me a book, is that paid distribution and thus advertising?

Another example: I used to subscribe to the print edition of the Economist. I as a consumer paid for that product. Does that mean there's no ads in the Economist? (A substantial fraction of the print edition is made up of ads in the common sense understanding of the term.)