7 ms·

This is an excellent idea. Advertising ought to be taxed like Tobacco. Advertising is responsible for the increased monopolization of the economy, inequality, u

This is an excellent idea. Advertising ought to be taxed like Tobacco. Advertising is responsible for the increased monopolization of the economy, inequality, urbanization, over-consumption, greed, depression and many other issues... Advertising is a cancer on society. It doesn't offer any value to the consumer (at least Tobacco offers some temporary pleasure), it must be taxed harshly.

MarchHare 9y ago
Whats wrong with urbanisation?
- ainiriand 9y ago
  This: https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12187508/mountain-lions-cougars-hunting-developed-areas-california-ucla-study https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12187508/mountain-lions-c... Conflict of habitats.
  - MarchHare 9y ago
    Isn't that an argument for more urbanisation and less destruction of habitat via suburban sprawl?
    - viridian 9y ago
      I think in this case he's including the suburbs in urban, as contrasted with rural living. In that light urbanization is generally harmful, as rural living tends to have less of an effect on wildlife since individuals are rarely stopping foxes, deer, etc from crossing through their property in the same way that miles of sprawl and deforested lawns do.
      - rbg246 9y ago
        Farms destroy the natural environment as well, not many farms are in forests and you generally shoot things that might attack your sheep or cattle.
    - ainiriand 9y ago
      I am not trying to make an argument here. It is a very complicated problem without an easy solution, I only wanted to arise this topic.
- jondubois 9y ago
  It drives up the cost of living for regular people because of higher real estate prices in big cities (due to limited space). This benefits the rich (landlords and big company shareholders) and drains resources away from smaller suburbs and less wealthy citizens who are forced to move to big cities to find jobs.
mifreewil 9y ago
As much as I hate ads, it's just not true that they don't offer any value. They often can and do inform consumers and businesses of products that will be of value to them. They often though advertise things that are also of the opposite (negative value) and play on human weaknesses.
- tyfon 9y ago
  You can find these with a minimum of research though, it's not like you _have_ to watch adds. I haven't had regular TV in over 10 years and I surf with ublock origin yet I can still find the things I need to buy.
  - jstandard 9y ago
    Someone does need to watch and click the ads though, otherwise many of those websites you're visiting (and apps you use) will have to shutdown.
    - tyfon 9y ago
      That's fine by me. I visit * My local news paper's webpage (which i pay for). * HN which does not have ads * neogaf which do not have ads * youtube / twitch which I pay for (and block whatever else with ublock) * Email (through google apps which I pay for). On the rare occasion I visit something else I make damn sure to to have ublock / noscript active. When it comes to apps, I pay for them. If there are no pay/ad free version I don't use them, it's that simple.
      - dylz 9y ago
        Doesn't HN implicitly have ads in the form of job postings/etc from YC partners?
  - nindalf 9y ago
    > You can find these with a minimum of research The problem is that many consumers might not even be aware that its a decision worth researching. For example, in some areas of the US it is cheaper and quicker to order online through Walmart than it is through Amazon. But most users order through Amazon by reflex, not even considering if there is an alternative. Advertising helps here. It tells them "look there is an alternative. Consider it!"
pharrlax 9y ago
>It doesn't offer any value to the consumer (at least Tobacco offers some temporary pleasure), it must be taxed harshly. I'm quite sure I've received value from browsing ad-supported news outlets and using other ad-supported online services, so speak for yourself. Furthermore, even though no one likes to admit they're positively persuaded by ads, it's universally true. How many times have you seen an ad for a movie and then gone to look up its reviews and considered watching it that weekend? Ads are just a way for companies to get the word out about their products / services, and sometimes they're legitimately useful.
- Certhas 9y ago
  They are legitimately useful, but they are also legitimately harmful by creating needs that you didn't have. They are categorically not just about informing people. And saying you received value from ad-supported stuff strikes me as very backwards. You still pay, but you pay through being manipulated into buying stuff you don't need.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    how do they create needs you didn't have? Your language removes agency from the consumer - no-one is forced to buy something they saw in an ad.
    - th4dv 9y ago
      > how do they create needs you didn't have? They use all kinds of sophisticated socio-psychological techniques to do so. Unfortunately, most people (including yourself) don't even realise this, hence they become more prone to such techniques.
      - beaconstudios 9y ago
        I'm well aware of the techniques they use, but my point is that no matter how much an advertiser tries to influence you into buying their product the final decision and action is always your own. You could argue that people with poor impulse control should be protected from advertisers, and I would agree with you to an extent, but that's a separate issue.
MichaelBurge 9y ago
Websites with ads are selling eyeballs to advertising companies, who then turn around and sell them to your local cranberry juice company. There are two types of eyeballs: 1. Those who don't end up buying cranberry juice: In this case, you've wasted their time showing them the ad - especially if they never talk about the ad to anyone else. Companies have a very direct incentive to avoid false positives, so you don't need to do anything there. 2. Those who end up buying cranberry juice: Unless you have a problem with the cranberry juice itself, the only problem here is that the cost went up slightly to pay for the advertising. If I'm willing to pay 10 cents more for cranberry juice than an alternative like tomato juice and 10% of the total cost is advertising(on average), then the benefit of advertising is: dValue = dBenefit - dCost = 0.10 - 0.1 * cost which is negative if the juice costs more than $1. (This assumes that without advertising, I would've picked the alternative) In order for dValue to always be negative(your claim), either nobody anywhere is innovating(dBenefit is never very large) or advertising companies are charging too much(dCost is very often large). How cheap would advertising have to be for you to consider it a net positive? Give me a number as percentage of total cost for a few example items. Unless dBenefit is always 0, such a number must exist when you subset to the case #2 group. This number seems like it would be related to your proposed tax, too.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
briandear 9y ago
What's wrong with the free market? Your comment reads like something Lenin might have written. Scary that there are people like you that would tax freedom into oblivion if given the chance.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please don't make generically ideological personal swipes like this, no matter what you're responding to.
malmsteen 9y ago
> Advertising is responsible for the increased monopolization of the economy, inequality, urbanization, over-consumption, greed, depression and many other issues... yeah screw moderation... let's be extreme all the way Advertising is not "responsible" of urbanisation.. urbanisation is a fact of life.
dahart 9y ago
Don't forget that if you see ads online or during shows and movies it's because you are choosing to consume content. The ads are how that content is funded. It's the content makers and/or content venues that buy the ads, not the advertisers. The ads are there because you and I aren't paying for the content we consume. We could get rid of a lot of advertising if we paid for the content we consume, but we choose not to. This ad-driven model allows content producers to get their material in front of many many more people than they would have otherwise since they get to offer it for free. BTW, ads are taxed, I believe the OP's point was that ads should be taxed in the locale in which they're shown, to give back locally rather than concentrating the tax revenue wherever adCorp is incorporated. I used to be as against ads as you are, and then I tried to start a business. In today's landscape, it is impossible to get people to try your product. There is so much noise and clamor for consumer attention, and there are so many amazing choices for free content, that if companies aren't sending out reminders that they exist, most people will forget. Overall, I'm in mild agreement that society would be better if it weren't ad-driven, but that's a utopian ideal we can't change with taxation, that's a brand new society and a brand new government. Taxing ads more won't make them go away, at all, it will just raise a few tax dollars. I'm in favor of using taxes on ads to pay for psychology and statistics education for all.
_yosefk 9y ago
If advertising is a cancer on society, what is advertising? If someone blogs on their company's platform and this is submitted to HN, or there's a "we're hiring" post on HN, or someone replies to "who's hiring", is that an ad and therefore cancer on society? If I enrolled to an evening school which I heard about from a YouTube ad which clearly knew my interests (real story), is that cancer on society or, since I think it was valuable and did not directly contribute to urbanization and other issues, is this no longer an ad because if it were an ad it would have been cancer?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

MarchHare 9y ago

Whats wrong with urbanisation?

ainiriand 9y ago
This: https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12187508/mountain-lions-cougars-hunting-developed-areas-california-ucla-study https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12187508/mountain-lions-c... Conflict of habitats.
- MarchHare 9y ago
  Isn't that an argument for more urbanisation and less destruction of habitat via suburban sprawl?
  - viridian 9y ago
    I think in this case he's including the suburbs in urban, as contrasted with rural living. In that light urbanization is generally harmful, as rural living tends to have less of an effect on wildlife since individuals are rarely stopping foxes, deer, etc from crossing through their property in the same way that miles of sprawl and deforested lawns do.
    - rbg246 9y ago
      Farms destroy the natural environment as well, not many farms are in forests and you generally shoot things that might attack your sheep or cattle.
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    I am not trying to make an argument here. It is a very complicated problem without an easy solution, I only wanted to arise this topic.
jondubois 9y ago
It drives up the cost of living for regular people because of higher real estate prices in big cities (due to limited space). This benefits the rich (landlords and big company shareholders) and drains resources away from smaller suburbs and less wealthy citizens who are forced to move to big cities to find jobs.

mifreewil 9y ago

As much as I hate ads, it's just not true that they don't offer any value. They often can and do inform consumers and businesses of products that will be of value to them. They often though advertise things that are also of the opposite (negative value) and play on human weaknesses.

tyfon 9y ago
You can find these with a minimum of research though, it's not like you _have_ to watch adds. I haven't had regular TV in over 10 years and I surf with ublock origin yet I can still find the things I need to buy.
- jstandard 9y ago
  Someone does need to watch and click the ads though, otherwise many of those websites you're visiting (and apps you use) will have to shutdown.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    That's fine by me. I visit * My local news paper's webpage (which i pay for). * HN which does not have ads * neogaf which do not have ads * youtube / twitch which I pay for (and block whatever else with ublock) * Email (through google apps which I pay for). On the rare occasion I visit something else I make damn sure to to have ublock / noscript active. When it comes to apps, I pay for them. If there are no pay/ad free version I don't use them, it's that simple.
    - dylz 9y ago
      Doesn't HN implicitly have ads in the form of job postings/etc from YC partners?
- nindalf 9y ago
  > You can find these with a minimum of research The problem is that many consumers might not even be aware that its a decision worth researching. For example, in some areas of the US it is cheaper and quicker to order online through Walmart than it is through Amazon. But most users order through Amazon by reflex, not even considering if there is an alternative. Advertising helps here. It tells them "look there is an alternative. Consider it!"

pharrlax 9y ago

>It doesn't offer any value to the consumer (at least Tobacco offers some temporary pleasure), it must be taxed harshly. I'm quite sure I've received value from browsing ad-supported news outlets and using other ad-supported online services, so speak for yourself. Furthermore, even though no one likes to admit they're positively persuaded by ads, it's universally true. How many times have you seen an ad for a movie and then gone to look up its reviews and considered watching it that weekend? Ads are just a way for companies to get the word out about their products / services, and sometimes they're legitimately useful.

Certhas 9y ago
They are legitimately useful, but they are also legitimately harmful by creating needs that you didn't have. They are categorically not just about informing people. And saying you received value from ad-supported stuff strikes me as very backwards. You still pay, but you pay through being manipulated into buying stuff you don't need.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  how do they create needs you didn't have? Your language removes agency from the consumer - no-one is forced to buy something they saw in an ad.
  - th4dv 9y ago
    > how do they create needs you didn't have? They use all kinds of sophisticated socio-psychological techniques to do so. Unfortunately, most people (including yourself) don't even realise this, hence they become more prone to such techniques.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      I'm well aware of the techniques they use, but my point is that no matter how much an advertiser tries to influence you into buying their product the final decision and action is always your own. You could argue that people with poor impulse control should be protected from advertisers, and I would agree with you to an extent, but that's a separate issue.

MichaelBurge 9y ago

Websites with ads are selling eyeballs to advertising companies, who then turn around and sell them to your local cranberry juice company. There are two types of eyeballs: 1. Those who don't end up buying cranberry juice: In this case, you've wasted their time showing them the ad - especially if they never talk about the ad to anyone else. Companies have a very direct incentive to avoid false positives, so you don't need to do anything there. 2. Those who end up buying cranberry juice: Unless you have a problem with the cranberry juice itself, the only problem here is that the cost went up slightly to pay for the advertising. If I'm willing to pay 10 cents more for cranberry juice than an alternative like tomato juice and 10% of the total cost is advertising(on average), then the benefit of advertising is: dValue = dBenefit - dCost = 0.10 - 0.1 * cost which is negative if the juice costs more than $1. (This assumes that without advertising, I would've picked the alternative) In order for dValue to always be negative(your claim), either nobody anywhere is innovating(dBenefit is never very large) or advertising companies are charging too much(dCost is very often large). How cheap would advertising have to be for you to consider it a net positive? Give me a number as percentage of total cost for a few example items. Unless dBenefit is always 0, such a number must exist when you subset to the case #2 group. This number seems like it would be related to your proposed tax, too.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

briandear 9y ago

What's wrong with the free market? Your comment reads like something Lenin might have written. Scary that there are people like you that would tax freedom into oblivion if given the chance.

sctb 9y ago
Please don't make generically ideological personal swipes like this, no matter what you're responding to.

malmsteen 9y ago

> Advertising is responsible for the increased monopolization of the economy, inequality, urbanization, over-consumption, greed, depression and many other issues... yeah screw moderation... let's be extreme all the way Advertising is not "responsible" of urbanisation.. urbanisation is a fact of life.

dahart 9y ago

Don't forget that if you see ads online or during shows and movies it's because you are choosing to consume content. The ads are how that content is funded. It's the content makers and/or content venues that buy the ads, not the advertisers. The ads are there because you and I aren't paying for the content we consume. We could get rid of a lot of advertising if we paid for the content we consume, but we choose not to. This ad-driven model allows content producers to get their material in front of many many more people than they would have otherwise since they get to offer it for free. BTW, ads are taxed, I believe the OP's point was that ads should be taxed in the locale in which they're shown, to give back locally rather than concentrating the tax revenue wherever adCorp is incorporated. I used to be as against ads as you are, and then I tried to start a business. In today's landscape, it is impossible to get people to try your product. There is so much noise and clamor for consumer attention, and there are so many amazing choices for free content, that if companies aren't sending out reminders that they exist, most people will forget. Overall, I'm in mild agreement that society would be better if it weren't ad-driven, but that's a utopian ideal we can't change with taxation, that's a brand new society and a brand new government. Taxing ads more won't make them go away, at all, it will just raise a few tax dollars. I'm in favor of using taxes on ads to pay for psychology and statistics education for all.

_yosefk 9y ago

If advertising is a cancer on society, what is advertising? If someone blogs on their company's platform and this is submitted to HN, or there's a "we're hiring" post on HN, or someone replies to "who's hiring", is that an ad and therefore cancer on society? If I enrolled to an evening school which I heard about from a YouTube ad which clearly knew my interests (real story), is that cancer on society or, since I think it was valuable and did not directly contribute to urbanization and other issues, is this no longer an ad because if it were an ad it would have been cancer?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]