12 ms·

prove it. and when i say prove it - you actually need to show damage and harm done, that's what the law requires. If you can't prove a single occurrence of t

prove it. and when i say prove it - you actually need to show damage and harm done, that's what the law requires. If you can't prove a single occurrence of the "adverserial in nature to the well-being of the individual", then there is no real grounds to sue on. legally speaking.

jononor 8y ago
Buying things that are not needed harms the persons economy. And gambling practically always a bad deal. Taking medicine that is not needed can be bad for the individual.
- sli 8y ago
  Before you get a response about personal responsibility and all that, everyone should have the psychological side of marketing and advertising firmly in mind. People are not in complete control of their responses to advertisements.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    ... but from a legal standpoint, personal responsibility is basically a cornerstone. We throw out a lot of legal fundamentals if we re-frame the decision to purchase a product voluntarily as "the ads mind-controlled you." There might be some precedent in the space (cigarette ad campaigns were severely curtailed during the "Big Tobacco" crackdown in the US), but ads in general? Good luck.
  - monetus 8y ago
    I've always thought this needs to be much more prevalent in any conversation about how ads should be used. I assume ads targeted towards children would be a good case study.
jhayward 8y ago
First of all, screw this attitude of "prove it in court". If you or your company is so sociopathic that you can't see the wrong here, well, just screw. Second the problem statement I made above itself shows harm. The fact that consumers have to worry about who got their private information, what was done with it, what harms happened that they aren't aware of, such as not getting a job, housing discrimination, loan discrimination, etc. is itself a harm. That these things happen, in general, is eminently provable and that fact causes worry, anxiety, and changes in behavior which is itself a harm.

jononor 8y ago

Buying things that are not needed harms the persons economy. And gambling practically always a bad deal. Taking medicine that is not needed can be bad for the individual.

sli 8y ago
Before you get a response about personal responsibility and all that, everyone should have the psychological side of marketing and advertising firmly in mind. People are not in complete control of their responses to advertisements.
- fixermark 8y ago
  ... but from a legal standpoint, personal responsibility is basically a cornerstone. We throw out a lot of legal fundamentals if we re-frame the decision to purchase a product voluntarily as "the ads mind-controlled you." There might be some precedent in the space (cigarette ad campaigns were severely curtailed during the "Big Tobacco" crackdown in the US), but ads in general? Good luck.
- monetus 8y ago
  I've always thought this needs to be much more prevalent in any conversation about how ads should be used. I assume ads targeted towards children would be a good case study.

jhayward 8y ago

First of all, screw this attitude of "prove it in court". If you or your company is so sociopathic that you can't see the wrong here, well, just screw. Second the problem statement I made above itself shows harm. The fact that consumers have to worry about who got their private information, what was done with it, what harms happened that they aren't aware of, such as not getting a job, housing discrimination, loan discrimination, etc. is itself a harm. That these things happen, in general, is eminently provable and that fact causes worry, anxiety, and changes in behavior which is itself a harm.