4 ms·

The point is that this is a policy that is hard to enforce because it is ambiguous. The system worked as intended if you think that the point was to make only t

The point is that this is a policy that is hard to enforce because it is ambiguous. The system worked as intended if you think that the point was to make only the most well-financed and technically savvy advertisers able to receive a benefit. Laws don't have anything to do with this thread?

pm90 7y ago
> as intended if you think that the point was to make only the most well-financed and technically savvy advertisers able to receive a benefit. Your argument is that breaking a law is expensive and only those with money can break it so why bother with laws. Beyond ridiculous. The example you’re using is also not convincing. Statistically insignificant amount of people know or care enough to watch F1 races.
- hailwren 7y ago
  > The example you’re using is also not convincing. Statistically insignificant amount of people know or care enough to watch F1 races. We have 1 user on the internet vs $1 Billion in advertising budget. I'm going to trust that Philip Morris is better at quantifying the effect here. > Your argument is that breaking a law is expensive and only those with money can break it so why bother with laws. Beyond ridiculous. This still has nothing to do with laws. It's an important distinction to make between laws and corporate policy because one carries very high punishments whilst the other is mostly without recourse. My argument is in no way proscriptive. Only descriptive.
  - pm90 7y ago
    The example that you used was specifically in the context of corporations getting around anti-tobacco laws. Not corporate policy against tobacco advertisement, but laws. I stand by my assessment that its a bad example to make the point you're trying to make. > It's an important distinction to make between laws and corporate policy because one carries very high punishments whilst the other is mostly without recourse. I agree with this.
    - hailwren 7y ago
      > The example that you used was specifically in the context of corporations getting around anti-tobacco laws. Not corporate policy against tobacco advertisement, but laws. I stand by my assessment that its a bad example to make the point you're trying to make. This is mostly incorrect. There are _some_ countries where tobacco advertising laws are the reason for Formula 1's tobacco advertising ban, but the rule being circumvented is FIA's tobacco ban. Interestingly, in countries where tobacco advertising is illegal, Ferrari often changes their livery to not include Mission Winnow.

pm90 7y ago

> as intended if you think that the point was to make only the most well-financed and technically savvy advertisers able to receive a benefit. Your argument is that breaking a law is expensive and only those with money can break it so why bother with laws. Beyond ridiculous. The example you’re using is also not convincing. Statistically insignificant amount of people know or care enough to watch F1 races.

hailwren 7y ago
> The example you’re using is also not convincing. Statistically insignificant amount of people know or care enough to watch F1 races. We have 1 user on the internet vs $1 Billion in advertising budget. I'm going to trust that Philip Morris is better at quantifying the effect here. > Your argument is that breaking a law is expensive and only those with money can break it so why bother with laws. Beyond ridiculous. This still has nothing to do with laws. It's an important distinction to make between laws and corporate policy because one carries very high punishments whilst the other is mostly without recourse. My argument is in no way proscriptive. Only descriptive.
- pm90 7y ago
  The example that you used was specifically in the context of corporations getting around anti-tobacco laws. Not corporate policy against tobacco advertisement, but laws. I stand by my assessment that its a bad example to make the point you're trying to make. > It's an important distinction to make between laws and corporate policy because one carries very high punishments whilst the other is mostly without recourse. I agree with this.
  - hailwren 7y ago
    > The example that you used was specifically in the context of corporations getting around anti-tobacco laws. Not corporate policy against tobacco advertisement, but laws. I stand by my assessment that its a bad example to make the point you're trying to make. This is mostly incorrect. There are _some_ countries where tobacco advertising laws are the reason for Formula 1's tobacco advertising ban, but the rule being circumvented is FIA's tobacco ban. Interestingly, in countries where tobacco advertising is illegal, Ferrari often changes their livery to not include Mission Winnow.