zlacker

[parent] [thread] 54 comments
1. Burnin+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:59:23
I think this is deeply and fundamentally wrong.

Advertising is how small and new companies can reach customers. It's how monopolies are broken. It's how progress reaches the masses.

Yes, it is willfully intended to change people's behavior. So are many of our posts on HN. That is an important purpose for communication!

replies(15): >>__Matr+c1 >>bentob+m1 >>kelnos+t1 >>Taek+I1 >>horsaw+02 >>BobbyT+c2 >>ranger+k2 >>dietr1+03 >>wat100+F3 >>asdf69+f5 >>rayine+W5 >>harshr+06 >>colord+e6 >>dclowd+p7 >>RajT88+Wu1
2. __Matr+c1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:08:40
>>Burnin+(OP)
Advertising may have been necessary the way you're describing in the 1950's but it's now so much easier to move information around.

As for all communication being a bit like advertising, a significant threshold has been crossed once you're paying to have your information elevated above that of your peers. If we didn't allow that, the noise floor would be lower, and it would be possible to achieve the benefits of advertising without the harms.

For instance, suppose I'm looking for a plumber... there are only maybe fifteen within a reasonable distance. There's no need for the plumbers to pay some third party for the privilege of being first in the list. I can limit my search criteria so that the results are narrow enough that I can consider each one, and they can instead spend that money on pipes or toilets or whatever.

replies(1): >>283042+nl
3. bentob+m1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:10:22
>>Burnin+(OP)
You’re right. New plan: let’s ban all paid advertisements except for those that are approved by a committee of government officials. /s
replies(1): >>__Matr+v2
4. kelnos+t1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:11:37
>>Burnin+(OP)
I don't really care if companies -- of any size -- can reach me or not. If I want a service they provide, I will actively seek them out.

Large companies already have a huge advantage over small/new companies in that they have much more money to spend on marketing and advertising. If anything, banning paid advertising helps level the playing field.

People will still find out about small and new businesses if paid advertising was banned. In fact I learn about most smaller players through word of mouth and other non-paid sources.

replies(2): >>Kerric+J3 >>kortil+04
5. Taek+I1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:14:08
>>Burnin+(OP)
The difference between an advertisement and a post on HN is that the HN comment (presumably) is not a paid comment - people are saying things on HN because they genuinely believe them, not because someone with an agenda paid them to pretend to believe them!

And that makes all the difference. I am very happy to read that an HN commenter prefers one specific brand of car - assuming that this is an unbiased comment and the commenter was not paid to say that. On the other hand, if they *were* paid to say they like a specific brand of car, they are deceiving me! They are exposing my brain to ideas and associations that are inauthentic, and making me more likely to buy a certain brand of car even though that car cannot get mentioned on its own merits, and instead needs to pay for attention.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that "advertising is how monopolies are broken" - my read on the advertising industry is that larger companies today have a massive advantage over smaller companies, and that smaller businesses would be more able to succeed if advertising was removed. And the advantage more or less comes from the larger brands ability to afford to expose a larger number of people, and that exposure has superlinear effects on purchase behavior (because not only are you exposed to it, but your friends are talking about it, and their family is talking about it, etc).

6. horsaw+02[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:17:06
>>Burnin+(OP)
Both perspectives have truth.

Some ads are abusive. Some ads compel behavior that is obviously bad for the participants.

Take all the sports gambling ads right now.

Take loot boxes with flashing visuals for children.

Some ads are fine. They are informative and useful, and can provide value.

I'm my opinion, we have leaned too far towards the bad. The useful is being drowned out by ads that take advantage of any social or emotional vulnerability we have. Banking on physical rewards systems geared towards smaller, more meaningful social groups to make us give up attention, time, and money.

I'm in favor of banning ads. Let's try the other end of the spectrum for a bit.

To be crass: let God find his own in the ads world. The good products will still spread organically. It's still advertising. It's just not the bullshit we have today.

7. BobbyT+c2[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:18:26
>>Burnin+(OP)
Ironically the companies with the most widespread advertising are the LARGE companies! They pollute our daily lives with stupid ads.

I’m really not concerned about the car I don’t have, the quality of my floor mop, or the latest prescription pharmaceutical that my primary care doctor is too stupid to even spell.

I really feel for the small companies. But outside extremely industry specific mediums, they just can’t afford to advertise much. They have to be known from reputation and search engine results.

So, while I see the point you are trying to make, by volume, the bulk of advertising is utter crap.

replies(1): >>kortil+e4
8. ranger+k2[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:19:52
>>Burnin+(OP)
The states that have banned billboards seem to get by just fine though.
◧◩
9. __Matr+v2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:22:22
>>bentob+m1
No seriously, let's ban all advertisements. If you want that info, you can seek it out, it should not seek you.
10. dietr1+03[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:26:47
>>Burnin+(OP)
You assume that advertisement is the only way of discovering business, which is not true.
11. wat100+F3[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:32:59
>>Burnin+(OP)
The difference is that we’re reading these comments willingly. A great deal of advertising is imposed on people who don’t want it.

If I don’t want my behavior swayed by HN, I can stop reading it. If I don’t want my behavior swayed by advertising, I can... close my eyes every time a bus goes by, avoid any public place with an operating television, and never check my mail?

replies(1): >>bearco+r4
◧◩
12. Kerric+J3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:33:51
>>kelnos+t1
When you seek them out, how will you find them?
replies(4): >>jrvare+14 >>TheDon+S4 >>kaibee+15 >>epidem+z7
◧◩
13. kortil+04[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:36:22
>>kelnos+t1
>If I want a service they provide, I will actively seek them out.

The problem is there are some services you don’t even know exist that could be much better than how you’re currently solving a problem. Think prevention vs treatment of a problem.

For a concrete example:

I learned about a dog groomer that comes to your house this way. Maybe it should have been obvious there would be some that made house calls but searching Google maps for groomers tends to return the ones with locations that you drive to.

Dog hates the car. Problem solved with a thing I didn’t know existed.

replies(4): >>NoWord+V4 >>forget+75 >>asdf69+p5 >>TheDon+w5
◧◩◪
14. jrvare+14[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:36:26
>>Kerric+J3
Not through ads - you can be sure of that!
◧◩
15. kortil+e4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:38:10
>>BobbyT+c2
This doesn’t match my experience. Are you maybe talking about untargeted ads like in the Super Bowl?

My feed on social apps and youtube is very frequently filled with small businesses near me.

◧◩
16. bearco+r4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:41:16
>>wat100+F3
Yes? Unfortunately others can communicate to us without our consent. That could be ads or someone writing you a postcard, or yelling on a street corner. All of those can influence us and not all of them are welcome but I don’t think it’s reasonable to think we can live in a world where we can fully control it without becoming hermits.
replies(3): >>spence+m5 >>wat100+56 >>joseda+E01
◧◩◪
17. TheDon+S4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:46:35
>>Kerric+J3
In the old days, if I wanted someone to remove a tree stump in my yard, I would ask my neighbor who had a stump removed who did it for them, or open the yellow pages.

In the modern age, I would open google maps (where companies can, for free, volunteer to be listed), or google.com and search.

The yellow pages are ads, and in a sense a company having a webpage which is indexed by google is advertising, but advertising in an index of services is wildly different from paying an influencer on tiktok to do a dance video that just happens to have a tree stump being removed in the background, as if by accident, with the company name visible.

I think anti-advertising people are largely fine with a yellow-pages-like list of companies, with a search engine that indexes company websites, with word-of-mouth questions and reports about what services exist out there.

Will it be harder for a new company that spends $10 on a purse made in vietnam and $20MM on advertising to convince consumers it's a necessary fashion item worth $20k to take off? Yes, absolutely. Will it be harder for a plumber in my area to get business? Honestly, probably about the same, people who need a plumber will usually look at the list of businesses offering the service in their area, and a new plumber can easily get added to google maps and slap together a site.

replies(1): >>sanswo+18
◧◩◪
18. NoWord+V4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:47:09
>>kortil+04
Advertising is the cure worse than the disease in this case. I'm willing to have a slightly worse service occasionally if it means I'm not being bombarded with corporate propaganda. If a service is bad enough, or my desire for something is great enough, I will seek it out.
◧◩◪
19. kaibee+15[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:47:45
>>Kerric+J3
Imagine this: instead of the search engine space being 90% focused on ads and 10% on providing a good search experience, you could have one that is focused on finding the thing you're looking for.
replies(1): >>sanswo+a8
◧◩◪
20. forget+75[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:48:18
>>kortil+04
If you're relying on ads to tell you how to solve your problems you're implicitly trusting that the information provided in ads is factual and unbiased, and that the problem in question wasn't entirely manufactured by the industry that is now showing you ads (see also: manscaping, engagement rings, vehicle AI integration, etc)
21. asdf69+f5[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:49:31
>>Burnin+(OP)
The companies exist to serve me and not the other way around. Companies don't have any inherent right to exist. If they can't make money off of me they're probably not doing anything that matters.

Do you mean real progress like washing machines and more efficient solar panels or fake progress like another beverage company to replace the ones that are already there? Real progress will spread by word of mouth. It will be much slower, but I'll accept that to never see an ad for another McDonalds new burger of the month.

Also, search engines are the perfect solution for discoverability here. I don't care if lawn care ads pop up if I search "lawn care service" but I don't want to have this thrown at me when I watch a YouTube video about Napoleon

◧◩◪
22. spence+m5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:51:04
>>bearco+r4
But one way we can control some of it is by banning advertising
replies(1): >>bearco+i6
◧◩◪
23. asdf69+p5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:51:35
>>kortil+04
I don't mean to be rude but I genuinely can't think of any service I've learned about through advertising. Do you have an example? I actively seek out product reviews and trailers for things I already know I want but I don't think an ad has changed my mind, just changed whether I buy A or B
replies(1): >>x0xrx+S5
◧◩◪
24. TheDon+w5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:53:00
>>kortil+04
Do you have strong examples of this?

Like, the SlapChop is a good counter example I think. The commercial demos the item, makes it looks useful, uses hot sales tactics, a bunch of people think "it's just 20 bucks, and chopping stuff sucks", buy one, and now we've got a bunch of SlapChops in the landfill because in practice they're finicky and more annoying to use than just a knife.

To me, it seems like by volume commercials mostly fall into trying to convince you you want/need something that's ultimately not that useful vs inform, and the vast majority of actual useful things I've found via actively searching, or via word-of-mouth / seeing it at a friend's house.

◧◩◪◨
25. x0xrx+S5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:56:17
>>asdf69+p5
How would you know? If you heard about it through word of mouth, and the person you heard it from heard it from an ad…
replies(1): >>asdf69+16
26. rayine+W5[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:57:18
>>Burnin+(OP)
You probably don’t need advertising now that the internet exists and people can just research what they need.
27. harshr+06[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:58:50
>>Burnin+(OP)
They can still promote their products, by sending them to social media reviewers no-strings-attached, or by posting through non-commercial channels. For instance, corporate representatives can promote their company's offerings on their own accounts on twitter or reddit.

What they should not be able to do is pay people, who have a media or influencer "brand", to say things about a product or service. Or pay media for a time slot during which a corporate agent spouts propaganda about the company's product or service. Or send a product to a reviewer as part of a contract for a review, even if it's supposedly a "fair and honest" review.

◧◩◪◨⬒
28. asdf69+16[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:58:51
>>x0xrx+S5
Good point. Friends, family, and colleagues keep telling me to buy stupid things they see from online ads all the time. They're probably pushing me towards an equal number of non-stupid things and I just don't notice.

In my personal life I pretty much never see ads and I like it that way, but thanks for giving me something to think about.

◧◩◪
29. wat100+56[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:59:22
>>bearco+r4
Maybe not, but only because it’s impractical, not because advertising is actually a good thing.
30. colord+e6[view] [source] 2025-04-07 03:00:49
>>Burnin+(OP)
You really think 1) advertising is the only channel for finding new products and 2) people will just give up looking for new products without ads?
◧◩◪◨
31. bearco+i6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:01:44
>>spence+m5
I’m curious how you’d define advertising. Is it just something applied to another form of media? Would you count an end cap at the super market? Does the McDonald’s logo on the big sign you can see from the highway count? Or the coke machine inside?
replies(1): >>spence+om
32. dclowd+p7[view] [source] 2025-04-07 03:12:11
>>Burnin+(OP)
Gotta disagree. The most disruptive up and comers seem to get there through word of mouth. I mean look at Figma. I haven't seen a single Figma ad since they began as a company (they probably exist somewhere) but they really rocketed off through word of mouth among the design community. Pretty sure slack was similar in this regard. Both disrupters.

I have no actual evidence of this always being the case but I would imagine given the fact the nature of a disrupter is that they're usually operating on principles of delivering a better product but without the budget to go crazy with advertising, they have to find more grassroots methods of market penetration.

◧◩◪
33. epidem+z7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:14:00
>>Kerric+J3
I really can't believe that someone who frequents Hacker News can ask this question.

If by any chance this is a legit question, i feel the answer would be too obvious: asking people, googling, going to a store you think could sell the thing you want, etc. There are many many pretty obvious ways of finding out about stuff, without needing to have a corporation "reach out" to me and shove their shit everywhere in the form of ads.

replies(2): >>sanswo+48 >>epidem+we
◧◩◪◨
34. sanswo+18[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:19:27
>>TheDon+S4
Who is paying for Google to run the search system or maps in this world?
replies(2): >>epidem+4d >>TheDon+ae
◧◩◪◨
35. sanswo+48[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:20:03
>>epidem+z7
Google doesn't exist in this world remember
replies(1): >>epidem+Mc
◧◩◪◨
36. sanswo+a8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:21:17
>>kaibee+15
You can have that now if you subscribe to Kagi but it costs money to operate and use. So without advertising you're choosing to make it impossible for poorer people to search.
replies(1): >>roenxi+Aa
◧◩◪◨⬒
37. roenxi+Aa[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:49:33
>>sanswo+a8
I don't see that argument having much heft. The people who are worried about their view being soured by billboards aren't the ones who are worried about what happens to poorer people. They move in different circles.
◧◩◪◨⬒
38. epidem+Mc[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:12:20
>>sanswo+48
Yes, i remember. I remember Google the search engine being a thing before it became an ad-ridden space.

Search engines are useful things. They can still exist on a world without ads.

replies(1): >>sanswo+td
◧◩◪◨⬒
39. epidem+4d[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:14:51
>>sanswo+18
Those are indeed very useful things.

It's true that people often spend their money on frivolous or unnecessary things. But sometimes people pay for useful things too!

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
40. sanswo+td[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:18:29
>>epidem+Mc
Google existed before ads by losing investor money. Who is paying for it when ads are banned?
replies(1): >>epidem+9f
◧◩◪◨⬒
41. TheDon+ae[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:25:05
>>sanswo+18
I pay for kagi, and that works okay.

I would prefer if this search-engine / company-directory were government funded, and thus paid for via my taxes.

It's a useful service for the people, and having the government also be able to validate businesses are real legal entities seems quite useful, so making it tax funded seems pretty ideal.

Ditto for an up-to-date map, that's a generally useful thing to the populace, and the government really is the best authority on what streets are still usable, what towns exist, etc.

replies(1): >>sanswo+Ye
◧◩◪◨
42. epidem+we[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:29:21
>>epidem+z7
And, just to expand a bit on this, what i find puzzling about the stance of "how will you find out about stuff without ads" is that it goes totally contrary to my contemporary experience.

Nowadays, when i want to find out about something, i don't just query Google about it, i usually make sure to add "site:reddit.com" to that query, precisely to avoid getting swamped by unuseful ads on the search results and instead have a change at getting to actual data from actual people. In this sense, ads are not only not useful for finding out about the stuff i want: they are actually hampering my ability to do so.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
43. sanswo+Ye[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:34:16
>>TheDon+ae
Most people can't afford to pay for Kagi.

A government funded maps program would be great same with a government funded search engine that had to try and compete with international search engines with more resources.

You can choose not to use Google though and avoid their ads.

You can choose not to use any service that uses ads and only use ones that allow you to pay for ad free experiences.

Banning ads removes that possibility for others when you can solve the problem today for yourself.

replies(1): >>TheDon+kg
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
44. epidem+9f[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:36:16
>>sanswo+td
This a thread about imagining a world without ads. If we're trying to envision that, it surely is not too hard to imagine how such a useful service for society as a search engine could be funded by other means, right?

There are many many examples of useful services (both private and public) in our own world that manage to exist without the need to get plastered by obnoxious ads.

replies(1): >>sanswo+Mf
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
45. sanswo+Mf[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:43:20
>>epidem+9f
People get upset at the idea of using government money to feed the starving. Why do you assume they would be ok with spending billions to create a search engine?

The reality is you can choose to have your dream reality right now. Pay for Kagi, pay for ad free streaming or buy bluerays, stay of social media or subscribe direct to your content providers in patron.

We don't need to remove free access just so a few people can go ad free. Those people can already do it they just choose not to

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
46. TheDon+kg[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 04:48:28
>>sanswo+Ye
> You can choose not to use any service that uses ads and only use ones that allow you to pay for ad free experiences.

Ads are so incredibly pervasive I effectively cannot.

There's stores I go to which only post their hours on instagram. There's friends I communicate with where my only communication avenue is instagram.

When I walk outside of my door I see billboards and ads, when I install an app required for my daily life, it's full of ads. iPhone, android, and windows all have ads by default littered throughout default apps.

We live in a society, and becoming a weirdo who refuses to use anything that doesn't run on my linux-phone will isolate me from that society. It's perfectly possible to criticize a thing and imagine alternatives without first becoming richard stallman.

replies(1): >>sanswo+Vh
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
47. sanswo+Vh[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 05:04:29
>>TheDon+kg
You could call the store or your friends, no ads there.

What are these apps that are required for your daily life?

My iPhone doesn't have any ads by default outside of the app store.

You're imagining a complete restricting of society and you're not even willing to do without a few apps and Instagram.

replies(1): >>TheDon+Ql
◧◩
48. 283042+nl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 05:40:03
>>__Matr+c1
And also, in communication there is respectful and disrespectful. Screaming in my face is communication. It is not respectful.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
49. TheDon+Ql[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 05:43:59
>>sanswo+Vh
> You could call the store or your friends, no ads there.

If everyone called the store to check if they're open instead of looking on instagram, the employee would never get time away from the phone to actually serve customers, you're suggesting something ridiculous. Text and phone calls aren't replacements for each other either between friends.

> What are these apps that are required for your daily life?

The app I have to use to buy train tickets has ads in it, mostly for fashion items sold at stores within train stations.

The app for checking train schedules is full of ads, and while there are open source apps on android for this, on iPhone you can't sideload open source apps so there's no ad-free alternatives. Releasing an app on iOS costs $100/year for the developer, so the incentive is not to make free open source apps. I really miss android. The iOS app store has so much completely garbage adware, and I can't even code up simple ad-free apps for myself without buying a macbook.

The app I have to use to send support requests to my landlord (an app dedicated to just that purpose) has a couple banner ads. The corporate landlord requires using it, and will not respond to phone calls.

My cell phone company's app, which is the only way to check my plan's remaining data, has a truly incredible number of ads.

.... and that's just off the top of my head. They're everywhere.

But even if all my apps were ad-free, the billboards posted everywhere, on busses, in trains, on buildings, are inescapable.

replies(1): >>sanswo+Zm
◧◩◪◨⬒
50. spence+om[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 05:47:58
>>bearco+i6
Any definition I could pick would be more than none, which us what we have now.

An easy start is all billboards, everything ublock origin considers an ad, TV/radio/magazine ones.

All very unambiguous

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
51. sanswo+Zm[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 05:54:01
>>TheDon+Ql
Instagram has been around less than 15 years. I'm suggesting you do what people did for the previous 100 years. You're not willing to do that to avoid ads? You're not willing to call or text your friends?

Instagram would be gone without ads, what would you do to fill the gap then?

Buy your tickets at the station? Use the train company website for the schedules?

Does your landlord or phone company have a website? What phone company is running third party ads in their app?

replies(1): >>TheDon+Hr
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
52. TheDon+Hr[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 06:43:05
>>sanswo+Zm
> Instagram has been around less than 15 years. I'm suggesting you do what people did for the previous 100 years. You're not willing to do that to avoid ads? You're not willing to call or text your friends?

The fact that instagram is relatively recent doesn't matter here, what matters is the social norms. You're a social outcast if you don't use ad-ridden software.

I'm not willing to be a depressed loner with no friends in order to avoid ads, if that's what you're asking. Just because I can unalive and no longer see ads doesn't mean that I have to like seeing them.

Social norms have changed, and I can't fix that by myself. I'll happily argue that social norms being ad-funded and brainwashing the populace, myself included, is bad though.

> Does your landlord or phone company have a website?

The cell phone provider's website has just as many ads as the app, they're equivalent. There isn't a webpage for my landlord.

replies(1): >>sanswo+Tt
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
53. sanswo+Tt[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 07:05:33
>>TheDon+Hr
Plenty of people manager to avoid being social outcasts without using Instagram. Keeping up with your friends pictures and reels is hardly a needed part of friendship. Call, text, message your friends, organise to hangout, put their birthdays in your calendar.

You're not willing to make literally the smallest of sacrifice to get what you want in avoiding ads. You've chosen a discount mobile network, go with a premium one to avoid ads.

If you're not going to be willing to pay for these things today how will your life be when you're forced to because they are no longer subsidised by advertising?

◧◩◪
54. joseda+E01[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 12:50:04
>>bearco+r4
And plenty of times a lot can be done to mitigate those, not being able to fix every chance, doesn't mean we should'nt try to fix what we can

Germany has a ban on coldcalling, Sao Paulo on outdoors advertising, Chile on Mascots / Kid Targeted Branding on Cereals

We can expand on those, I won't say neccessarily kill all advetisement, but we could certainly do a lot better than the current climate

55. RajT88+Wu1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 15:24:04
>>Burnin+(OP)
There is a balance to be maintained for sure. I am known for bemoaning the almost-exclusively scammy ads on Facebook (and getting downvoted for it here).

But - also - my wife and I opened a restaurant recently. We need exposure. We are buying ad space on social media, having influencers review the place, working on putting up fliers at public bulletin boards, and investigating mailers (snail mail). It's clear, we're not going to make a go of it without connecting with more customers. If it was just me and her working it, we'd be in the green but we have day jobs and pay our (necessary) employees fairly.

[go to top]