8 ms·

Forbid advertisements. We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. We can provide workarounds for 5 to 10 years but the core problem ha

by Iv 7y ago

Forbid advertisements. We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. We can provide workarounds for 5 to 10 years but the core problem has to be shut down at one point.

hakanensari 7y ago
Printed media can have ads. So should digital media? That said, I wish digital media stopped wholesale delegating the work of serving ads to third parties and had proper control over experience and privacy—what is delivered how and who tracks whom.
- II2II 7y ago
  The difference between printed, radio, and television ads is that they are tracking distribution rather than people. (I realize that this is not strictly true, but people had to opt-in to tracking with traditional media.) The web has taken an industry that already had reputation for deceptive tactics and have handed them tremendous powers through data collection. Should advertising be banned because of that? I doubt that it would be effective since the advertising industry has created an environment where tracking people is the norm. Banning advertising would simply shift the focus of that data collection so that it is less visible. It would also be incredibly difficult to ban advertising. Legislation would have to create a clear definition of what advertising is and deal with a medium and business world that crosses national borders. If you don't consider the former, such legislation would have unintended consequences of the freedom of speech. In the case of the latter, it would be far more difficult to reach international agreements than with other online regulations (regulations that are already difficult to enforce) since advertising is considered legitimate in many cases while standards for advertising will differ.
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    Require a strictly unconditional opt-in you can revoke at any time and the problem of data collection solves itself. None of these business models would work if they required meaningful consent. The missunderstanding about who is allowed to use my data is at the core of this problem. We tend to talk a lot of the lawless west that (was) the internet, but we somehow fail to mention an industry who has exploited missing regulations on private data. Just because they werent banned from exploiting this until now, doesnt mean it should continue any longer.
- everdrive 7y ago
  Because the digital ads are something else entirely. They're often an order of magnitude larger (in MB), they contain tracking, they sell my information whether I want them to or not, they often contain malware. Maybe of them play audio or video.
- Iv 7y ago
  I'm in favor of banning ads everywhere. I think they provide a negative overall value on the economy by distorting competition and consumers' perception.
cyborgx7 7y ago
>Forbid advertisements. I'm glad I'm not the only one saying it in a thread, for once. > We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. This is something that is sometimes hard to accept for the hacker mindset, but it's absolutely true and an important thing to realize.
- Frondo 7y ago
  The hacker seeking a technical solution is, I think, at least in part a consequence of the individualism that's so much a part of especially the Silicon Valley hacking era; along with the libertarian leanings of especially early hacker culture. Seeking change at a societal level is the exact opposite of the hacker's free-wheeling individualism, but it's the only way to actually accomplish change at a societal level. You're right, we'll never change advertising just by running individual ad blockers, and we'll never change privacy controls by trying to mask our identities; that has to happen through laws and larger society. We have to have a right to privacy and freedom from advertising be a thing that everyone wants, the bus driver, the butcher, hair stylist, etc., not just what we can foist on our immediate family and social circle.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I think the catch is that a hacker mindset can easily come up with 3 different laws that people would try to pass and then 4 different hacks to each of those laws. It enables easily seeing how to exploit the very poor quality of code (and yes, while many of those exploits are forbidden by judges who don't take kindly to them, others are deemed acceptable and some lawyers specialize in).
  - Iv 7y ago
    Then hack this: from now on, saying good things about a product or a brand in exchange of a retribution will be classified as corruption.
kashug 7y ago
With the current trend in EU I think it could happen that they regulate web-advertisement if it becomes too much of an issue. But there's loads of money in the market - so I would expect loads of lobbyism.
- anoncake 7y ago
  The money isn't even the main issue here. Political parties rely on ad agencies for their campaigns.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    It seems like if all advertising gets banned, no political party individually would be put at a dissadvantage to the others.
    - ZiiS 7y ago
      Political parties are not optimising for fair. They want to preserve the advantage rich and powerful parties currently enjoy.
      - cyborgx7 7y ago
        This is why when people say they don't take money from big corporations or rich donors, it's such an important factor. It's not just that you as a political party are incentivized to what they want so they will keep giving you money. Even if you donÄt directly succumb to their demands, you are incentivized to keep them rich so they will keep having all that money to give you.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dooglius 7y ago
      They could just carve out an exception for themselves
    - anoncake 7y ago
realusername 7y ago
> We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. I hear that a lot but historically, we've seen a lot of the opposite, a lot of political problems were solved with technical solutions. Technology so far had an even bigger impact than politics on society.
- onethought 7y ago
  Could you qualify that statement... politics encompasses most conflicts throughout history. Short of the moon landing... technology hasn’t really featured.
  - Demiurge 7y ago
    I would venture to say Moon landing is a bit below nuclear weapons.
    - onethought 7y ago
      You mean those things we've only used once (twice) and the rest has been politics?
- Iv 7y ago
  They keyword is "purely". Technology can enable a political will and can create an opportunity for change, but if the political will goes in one direction, no amount of tech will be able to resist it forever. We could ban ads easily with a law. It would not need any tech. Scrubbing all the ads while there are incentives to develop them, however, is a lost fight.
rmsaksida 7y ago
That would be great, but realistically I think that's never going to happen. Legislation-wise, I think the best the web can hope for is forcing websites to label ads. It doesn't sound unobtainable, especially as similar legislation already exists for political ads in many places. For example, legislation could require websites to label all ads with some kind of strictly defined watermark. In addition, some kind of software-readable indication would be required for accessibility purposes. Could be a special HTML tag or attribute. That would make ad blocking much easier.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  > some kind of software-readable indication would be required for accessibility purposes. Could be a special HTML tag or attribute. That would make ad blocking much easier. I don't share your pessimism about the feasability of politically banning all advertising, but I agree that something like this would be the next best thing, and a great step.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    In the US at least there is rightfully a free speech issue. It would take some serious constitutional wrangling to get a ban in place. Tracking technology and terrible analytics platforms that slow everything down are much lower hanging fruit.
- clarry 7y ago
  As much as I hate ads and would like to see them go, I don't want lawmakers telling me how to build my websites.
  - tpxl 7y ago
    Lawmakers already tell you how to build websites.
    - fwn 7y ago
      Your comment is not opposing your parents stated preferences. It's like: A: I don't like rain. B: It's already raining.
beefield 7y ago
> Forbid advertisements But... Ads are useful. I remember once maybe ten years ago when I noticed an ad about an event in a nearby library that was absolutely amazing and without ads I would not have been there. (This is sarcasm. There is no reason why manipulating other people to do things should not be regulated heavily.)
donatj 7y ago
Why is it a “problem”? Outlawing ads seems hugely regressive for society as a whole. Without ads there would be basically no free content online, and those who cannot afford content would simply go without. Consider how much better the world has become due to easy access to information. To yank that away seems like bringing a dark age.
- lameiam 7y ago
  If there are ads, then the content is not free.
  - donatj 7y ago
    I am given valuable content and did not give money. For all reasonalble intents and purposes it’s free. For as far as any person without means cares, it is free.
    - n0rbwah 7y ago
      You give them some of your brain time which they're reselling to the highest bidder.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Which is not money, thus its free.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        You either use that brain time to generate income at work and then hand over that money, or use it in real-time to pay for the content. Ads are much faster and easier in that regard.
    - dordoka 7y ago
      It might be free as in gratis (free beer), but it's not free at all. Your behaviour, your profile, your data: you are the one giving that away in exchange. That data of yours is valuable.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dangus 7y ago
At what point in human history have advertisements not existed? There are even advertisements in North Korea (for the ruling party). This idea isn’t realistic.
- Iv 7y ago
  For a bit longer than slavery or smallpox has existed. Saying a thing always existed is a pretty bad argument to keep it alive.
vthriller 7y ago
> Forbid advertisements. How would one formalize what's an ad and what's not? And what about sneaky things like sponsored content or, say, amazon reviews? It's hard sometimes to tell whether a review is legitimate or an ad in disguise.
- Iv 7y ago
  I think ads are very close to corruption. "Did you receive compensation to say good things about this product?" Yes: corruption. No: you're clear.
colejohnson66 7y ago
But how do we handle that pesky First Amendment? Without either a new amendment or the Supreme Court ruling ads aren’t protected speech, we’re stuck.
- Iv 7y ago
  Don't forbid to say good things about a product, forbid paying someone to do it. I don't mind Apple fanboys saying why they think Steve Jobs was a genius. I mind the big fucking 5m ads they put on historical monuments.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Paying someone is speech. See Citizen United v. FEC.[0] And before you claim it’s a bad ruling, think about all the times you’ve used your money. Are you not supporting the EFF in some form of speech by donating to them? Are you not supporting a product in some form by buying it? I don’t like it as it allows money in politics, but it’s a ruling that makes sense. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
    - Iv 7y ago
      It is a bad ruling that is often used in EU to show how fucked up the US system is. No, "speech" is something, that you can argue extend to written declarations and publications, but "paying someone to support their actions" is something different. It is something that can be used to promote a political expression and it makes some sense to protect some form of it but certainly not on the same grounds as protecting free speech. Paying someone to put forward an opinion has other names: corruption, lobbying and, yes, advertisement. None of them should be practice protected under freedom of expression laws. See, why is freedom of expression good? Because of the core philosophical belief that truth and good opinion emerge from the confrontation of different point of views. Alvin tells me why we should not bomb Eastasia, Barbara tells me why we should. Charles comes with additional facts. Daniele points out some lies and incoherence in some of the past arguments. They all make their points, then I think for myself to make my opinion. This is how opinions of voters but also lawmakers, leaders, journalists, magistrates, citizens are supposed to be formed. In no way would this process be helped by paying the person that is forming their opinion. Quite the contrary. So yes, this ruling was bad. Incredibly bad. It is bad for philosophical, moral, practical reasons. The fact that I should be allowed to donate to EFF does not rely on the 2nd amendment. And in fact I do want the law to forbid me to give 10 millions to the EFF to drop a lawsuit that would go against my interests.
SkyBelow 7y ago
I don't see how this could be done without strongly impacting free speech and even some other freedoms. For example, where is the difference between me talking about a game I like to play and someone talking about a game they like to pay that they were given a free copy to play? I think looking at forbidding tracking is a better path to pursue. Or maybe making someone legally responsible for their ad codes as if they knowingly placed it there.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  You getting paid is the difference. Its the same way most corruption regulations work.
manigandham 7y ago
Advertising is everywhere, and a core driver of economic growth for companies. Everyone with a job is working for a company that advertises to some degree and grows because of it. Some bad or annoying ads on the web is not cause to forbid advertisements and completely misses all the content that it pays for.
eqtn 7y ago
Banning targeted ads can be the first step here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by Iv 7y ago

Forbid advertisements. We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. We can provide workarounds for 5 to 10 years but the core problem has to be shut down at one point.

hakanensari 7y ago

Printed media can have ads. So should digital media? That said, I wish digital media stopped wholesale delegating the work of serving ads to third parties and had proper control over experience and privacy—what is delivered how and who tracks whom.

II2II 7y ago
The difference between printed, radio, and television ads is that they are tracking distribution rather than people. (I realize that this is not strictly true, but people had to opt-in to tracking with traditional media.) The web has taken an industry that already had reputation for deceptive tactics and have handed them tremendous powers through data collection. Should advertising be banned because of that? I doubt that it would be effective since the advertising industry has created an environment where tracking people is the norm. Banning advertising would simply shift the focus of that data collection so that it is less visible. It would also be incredibly difficult to ban advertising. Legislation would have to create a clear definition of what advertising is and deal with a medium and business world that crosses national borders. If you don't consider the former, such legislation would have unintended consequences of the freedom of speech. In the case of the latter, it would be far more difficult to reach international agreements than with other online regulations (regulations that are already difficult to enforce) since advertising is considered legitimate in many cases while standards for advertising will differ.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  Require a strictly unconditional opt-in you can revoke at any time and the problem of data collection solves itself. None of these business models would work if they required meaningful consent. The missunderstanding about who is allowed to use my data is at the core of this problem. We tend to talk a lot of the lawless west that (was) the internet, but we somehow fail to mention an industry who has exploited missing regulations on private data. Just because they werent banned from exploiting this until now, doesnt mean it should continue any longer.
everdrive 7y ago
Because the digital ads are something else entirely. They're often an order of magnitude larger (in MB), they contain tracking, they sell my information whether I want them to or not, they often contain malware. Maybe of them play audio or video.
Iv 7y ago
I'm in favor of banning ads everywhere. I think they provide a negative overall value on the economy by distorting competition and consumers' perception.

cyborgx7 7y ago

>Forbid advertisements. I'm glad I'm not the only one saying it in a thread, for once. > We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. This is something that is sometimes hard to accept for the hacker mindset, but it's absolutely true and an important thing to realize.

Frondo 7y ago
The hacker seeking a technical solution is, I think, at least in part a consequence of the individualism that's so much a part of especially the Silicon Valley hacking era; along with the libertarian leanings of especially early hacker culture. Seeking change at a societal level is the exact opposite of the hacker's free-wheeling individualism, but it's the only way to actually accomplish change at a societal level. You're right, we'll never change advertising just by running individual ad blockers, and we'll never change privacy controls by trying to mask our identities; that has to happen through laws and larger society. We have to have a right to privacy and freedom from advertising be a thing that everyone wants, the bus driver, the butcher, hair stylist, etc., not just what we can foist on our immediate family and social circle.
SkyBelow 7y ago
I think the catch is that a hacker mindset can easily come up with 3 different laws that people would try to pass and then 4 different hacks to each of those laws. It enables easily seeing how to exploit the very poor quality of code (and yes, while many of those exploits are forbidden by judges who don't take kindly to them, others are deemed acceptable and some lawyers specialize in).
- Iv 7y ago
  Then hack this: from now on, saying good things about a product or a brand in exchange of a retribution will be classified as corruption.

kashug 7y ago

With the current trend in EU I think it could happen that they regulate web-advertisement if it becomes too much of an issue. But there's loads of money in the market - so I would expect loads of lobbyism.

anoncake 7y ago
The money isn't even the main issue here. Political parties rely on ad agencies for their campaigns.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  It seems like if all advertising gets banned, no political party individually would be put at a dissadvantage to the others.
  - ZiiS 7y ago
    Political parties are not optimising for fair. They want to preserve the advantage rich and powerful parties currently enjoy.
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      This is why when people say they don't take money from big corporations or rich donors, it's such an important factor. It's not just that you as a political party are incentivized to what they want so they will keep giving you money. Even if you donÄt directly succumb to their demands, you are incentivized to keep them rich so they will keep having all that money to give you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dooglius 7y ago
    They could just carve out an exception for themselves
  - anoncake 7y ago

realusername 7y ago

> We can't solve a political problem with purely technical solutions. I hear that a lot but historically, we've seen a lot of the opposite, a lot of political problems were solved with technical solutions. Technology so far had an even bigger impact than politics on society.

onethought 7y ago
Could you qualify that statement... politics encompasses most conflicts throughout history. Short of the moon landing... technology hasn’t really featured.
- Demiurge 7y ago
  I would venture to say Moon landing is a bit below nuclear weapons.
  - onethought 7y ago
    You mean those things we've only used once (twice) and the rest has been politics?
Iv 7y ago
They keyword is "purely". Technology can enable a political will and can create an opportunity for change, but if the political will goes in one direction, no amount of tech will be able to resist it forever. We could ban ads easily with a law. It would not need any tech. Scrubbing all the ads while there are incentives to develop them, however, is a lost fight.

rmsaksida 7y ago

That would be great, but realistically I think that's never going to happen. Legislation-wise, I think the best the web can hope for is forcing websites to label ads. It doesn't sound unobtainable, especially as similar legislation already exists for political ads in many places. For example, legislation could require websites to label all ads with some kind of strictly defined watermark. In addition, some kind of software-readable indication would be required for accessibility purposes. Could be a special HTML tag or attribute. That would make ad blocking much easier.

cyborgx7 7y ago
> some kind of software-readable indication would be required for accessibility purposes. Could be a special HTML tag or attribute. That would make ad blocking much easier. I don't share your pessimism about the feasability of politically banning all advertising, but I agree that something like this would be the next best thing, and a great step.
- topkai22 7y ago
  In the US at least there is rightfully a free speech issue. It would take some serious constitutional wrangling to get a ban in place. Tracking technology and terrible analytics platforms that slow everything down are much lower hanging fruit.
clarry 7y ago
As much as I hate ads and would like to see them go, I don't want lawmakers telling me how to build my websites.
- tpxl 7y ago
  Lawmakers already tell you how to build websites.
  - fwn 7y ago
    Your comment is not opposing your parents stated preferences. It's like: A: I don't like rain. B: It's already raining.

beefield 7y ago

> Forbid advertisements But... Ads are useful. I remember once maybe ten years ago when I noticed an ad about an event in a nearby library that was absolutely amazing and without ads I would not have been there. (This is sarcasm. There is no reason why manipulating other people to do things should not be regulated heavily.)

donatj 7y ago

Why is it a “problem”? Outlawing ads seems hugely regressive for society as a whole. Without ads there would be basically no free content online, and those who cannot afford content would simply go without. Consider how much better the world has become due to easy access to information. To yank that away seems like bringing a dark age.

lameiam 7y ago
If there are ads, then the content is not free.
- donatj 7y ago
  I am given valuable content and did not give money. For all reasonalble intents and purposes it’s free. For as far as any person without means cares, it is free.
  - n0rbwah 7y ago
    You give them some of your brain time which they're reselling to the highest bidder.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Which is not money, thus its free.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      You either use that brain time to generate income at work and then hand over that money, or use it in real-time to pay for the content. Ads are much faster and easier in that regard.
  - dordoka 7y ago
    It might be free as in gratis (free beer), but it's not free at all. Your behaviour, your profile, your data: you are the one giving that away in exchange. That data of yours is valuable.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dangus 7y ago

At what point in human history have advertisements not existed? There are even advertisements in North Korea (for the ruling party). This idea isn’t realistic.

Iv 7y ago
For a bit longer than slavery or smallpox has existed. Saying a thing always existed is a pretty bad argument to keep it alive.

vthriller 7y ago

> Forbid advertisements. How would one formalize what's an ad and what's not? And what about sneaky things like sponsored content or, say, amazon reviews? It's hard sometimes to tell whether a review is legitimate or an ad in disguise.

Iv 7y ago
I think ads are very close to corruption. "Did you receive compensation to say good things about this product?" Yes: corruption. No: you're clear.

colejohnson66 7y ago

But how do we handle that pesky First Amendment? Without either a new amendment or the Supreme Court ruling ads aren’t protected speech, we’re stuck.

Iv 7y ago
Don't forbid to say good things about a product, forbid paying someone to do it. I don't mind Apple fanboys saying why they think Steve Jobs was a genius. I mind the big fucking 5m ads they put on historical monuments.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Paying someone is speech. See Citizen United v. FEC.[0] And before you claim it’s a bad ruling, think about all the times you’ve used your money. Are you not supporting the EFF in some form of speech by donating to them? Are you not supporting a product in some form by buying it? I don’t like it as it allows money in politics, but it’s a ruling that makes sense. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - Iv 7y ago
    It is a bad ruling that is often used in EU to show how fucked up the US system is. No, "speech" is something, that you can argue extend to written declarations and publications, but "paying someone to support their actions" is something different. It is something that can be used to promote a political expression and it makes some sense to protect some form of it but certainly not on the same grounds as protecting free speech. Paying someone to put forward an opinion has other names: corruption, lobbying and, yes, advertisement. None of them should be practice protected under freedom of expression laws. See, why is freedom of expression good? Because of the core philosophical belief that truth and good opinion emerge from the confrontation of different point of views. Alvin tells me why we should not bomb Eastasia, Barbara tells me why we should. Charles comes with additional facts. Daniele points out some lies and incoherence in some of the past arguments. They all make their points, then I think for myself to make my opinion. This is how opinions of voters but also lawmakers, leaders, journalists, magistrates, citizens are supposed to be formed. In no way would this process be helped by paying the person that is forming their opinion. Quite the contrary. So yes, this ruling was bad. Incredibly bad. It is bad for philosophical, moral, practical reasons. The fact that I should be allowed to donate to EFF does not rely on the 2nd amendment. And in fact I do want the law to forbid me to give 10 millions to the EFF to drop a lawsuit that would go against my interests.

SkyBelow 7y ago

I don't see how this could be done without strongly impacting free speech and even some other freedoms. For example, where is the difference between me talking about a game I like to play and someone talking about a game they like to pay that they were given a free copy to play? I think looking at forbidding tracking is a better path to pursue. Or maybe making someone legally responsible for their ad codes as if they knowingly placed it there.

cf141q5325 7y ago
You getting paid is the difference. Its the same way most corruption regulations work.

manigandham 7y ago

Advertising is everywhere, and a core driver of economic growth for companies. Everyone with a job is working for a company that advertises to some degree and grows because of it. Some bad or annoying ads on the web is not cause to forbid advertisements and completely misses all the content that it pays for.

eqtn 7y ago

Banning targeted ads can be the first step here.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]