4 ms·

> information about medicines TV ads are not "information about medicines", that's just ridiculous. They are mind-games the advertisers play with potential cus

> information about medicines TV ads are not "information about medicines", that's just ridiculous. They are mind-games the advertisers play with potential customers in hope of squeezing more cash out of them. You want true information? Read peer-review studies. > Under the current model a doctor could say "You should take <x>" and I would have little to no exposure to alternatives Right, 'cause doctors are evil like that. I just saw an ad revealing what doctors don't want me to know, I am totally going to believe it!

crusso 11y ago
You could say similar things about political ads. They're mind-games. Do we want to get rid of them too?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  ABSOLUTELY YES. That we, as a society, allow people deceive us and to lie in our faces, and not only that - we've turned it into an respected occupation - still boggles my mind.
  - netheril96 11y ago
    In order to ban lies, you need to entrust power in someone else to discern the lies from truth. But that someone else lies too. It is simply intractable. Like the halting problem.
    - crusso 11y ago
      Exactly. That's why we opt for free speech. We allow people to lie and attempt to deceive and spin because we know that it's better for citizens to be accustomed to the marketing and somewhat robust against it than to trust some other higher power that can betray the unprotected and unaware masses.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I don't buy it. I think "we" didn't allow a thing, it's just that lying makes money, money gives power, and power can be used to keep your lying legal (and money can be used to make it be perceived as socially acceptable occupation).
        crusso 11y ago
        And how do you get around the problem of who watches the watchers? [edit add: Because I actually don't disagree with anything you said, but the solution you propose never seems to work]
    - maerF0x0 11y ago
      that someone else in our current system are judges. I'm not sure i know of a justice system that doesnt eventually place the burden on a small number of people. AFAIK systems hoping to discern truth eventually require a cannon.

crusso 11y ago

You could say similar things about political ads. They're mind-games. Do we want to get rid of them too?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
ABSOLUTELY YES. That we, as a society, allow people deceive us and to lie in our faces, and not only that - we've turned it into an respected occupation - still boggles my mind.
- netheril96 11y ago
  In order to ban lies, you need to entrust power in someone else to discern the lies from truth. But that someone else lies too. It is simply intractable. Like the halting problem.
  - crusso 11y ago
    Exactly. That's why we opt for free speech. We allow people to lie and attempt to deceive and spin because we know that it's better for citizens to be accustomed to the marketing and somewhat robust against it than to trust some other higher power that can betray the unprotected and unaware masses.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I don't buy it. I think "we" didn't allow a thing, it's just that lying makes money, money gives power, and power can be used to keep your lying legal (and money can be used to make it be perceived as socially acceptable occupation).
      - crusso 11y ago
        And how do you get around the problem of who watches the watchers? [edit add: Because I actually don't disagree with anything you said, but the solution you propose never seems to work]
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    that someone else in our current system are judges. I'm not sure i know of a justice system that doesnt eventually place the burden on a small number of people. AFAIK systems hoping to discern truth eventually require a cannon.