5 ms·

Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is

Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is speech that would not otherwise be made if one party was not being compensated in some way or another. Obviously this definition has tons of edge cases, but it's a good starting point IMO. While all of those coca cola ads are "true", they would be limited in scope to places that coca cola owns. So no bus stations or taxi toppers or whatever, unless they buy a fleet of taxis.

anoncake 7y ago
What if we mandated that companies can only use their revenues for the company's purpose or given to the shareholders? I consider "ads" on company property part of the company's purpose here as they're necessary so the customer knows what company they're dealing with. - Ads would be implicitly banned. - Coca Cola couldn't bypass this rule by buying a taxi fleet because they aren't a taxi company. - Newspapers could still operate even though journalists get paid for speech. It could also help against other problems, depending on how narrow the purpose of a company has to be: - ISPs have no incentive to violate net neutrality by privileging their own value added services (streaming etc) because their ISPs not streaming providers. - If you subscribe to a folder that syncs you know that it will remain a folder that syncs. The behind it won't pivot to something you neither want not need, bloating the software till it bursts. - Similarly: No incredible journeys anymore. Products don't get discontinued because they get in the way of $CORPORATION's plans. - Chosing services because they aren't owned by Facebook actually works. - Open protocols would be a thing again if we decouple clients and services. Edge case: Someone initially has to develop a client, a server and the protocol. The idea is that by separating concerns, we enable customers to decide where their money goes and to freely chose between goods and services without getting artificially locked into any corporation's ecosystem.

anoncake 7y ago

What if we mandated that companies can only use their revenues for the company's purpose or given to the shareholders? I consider "ads" on company property part of the company's purpose here as they're necessary so the customer knows what company they're dealing with. - Ads would be implicitly banned. - Coca Cola couldn't bypass this rule by buying a taxi fleet because they aren't a taxi company. - Newspapers could still operate even though journalists get paid for speech. It could also help against other problems, depending on how narrow the purpose of a company has to be: - ISPs have no incentive to violate net neutrality by privileging their own value added services (streaming etc) because their ISPs not streaming providers. - If you subscribe to a folder that syncs you know that it will remain a folder that syncs. The behind it won't pivot to something you neither want not need, bloating the software till it bursts. - Similarly: No incredible journeys anymore. Products don't get discontinued because they get in the way of $CORPORATION's plans. - Chosing services because they aren't owned by Facebook actually works. - Open protocols would be a thing again if we decouple clients and services. Edge case: Someone initially has to develop a client, a server and the protocol. The idea is that by separating concerns, we enable customers to decide where their money goes and to freely chose between goods and services without getting artificially locked into any corporation's ecosystem.