6 ms·

As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere (note: I consider free speech important). Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Pr

As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere (note: I consider free speech important). Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!" from the early days of TV. And if you're talking about banning all paid endorsements, I guarantee there will be 10,000 loopholes that look like Citizens United/SuperPAC behavior, where a person performs the advertising speech in public for free, and then is later given gifts and trips and other things for "unrelated reasons" from an "industry interest group." In short, we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system, which I'm pretty sure will never ever happen since the Powers That Be are all there precisely because, as you said, they all use the media channels of the day to manipulate.

franky47 7y ago
Adverts are not free speech. Public service announcements on billboards might be, like the band trying to promote their underground concert in town, or an association promoting a cultural event. But you can't put those in the same basket as big corporations paying multiple k$ for premium attention-grabbing spots with fancy graphics to make you dream of things you don't need.
- betenoire 7y ago
  Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the difference?
  - franky47 7y ago
    If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.
    - ultrarunner 7y ago
      I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events. Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?
      - natecavanaugh 7y ago
        Likewise, I love Apple products, and wish for them to generate more revenue (ostensibly, more resources for them to improve said products and create new ones). I neither work for Apple nor have any vested financial interest in saying so (no stock in the company, no relatives that work for them, and zero way that their increased revenues in any way impacts my bank account or the bank account of anyone I know). Is my promotion of them, which in some ways feeds my ego (for making such wise purchasing decisions) and makes my life easier via a larger user base to compare notes with, find support, etc, considered free speech, or advertising? Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system It's not practical. Even if people were taught and learned that, you can't expect them to stand on their own against an entire industry, which pays top dollar for the best and brightest in psychology and cognitive science to work full-time on manipulating people. The arms race favors the attacking side very strongly here. It'd be hard to eradicate advertising with legal means, but I'm confident the most egregious forms could be made not worth the money. Advertising will be a problem for as long as malice exists, but so will theft and murder, and somehow we manage to prevent the latter two from disrupting society too much.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I agree that it's likely impossible in a system where free expression is the bedrock of our society - to the point where advertising is a massive portion of our economy. I still feel strongly that advertising should not exist and think it's on par with CO2 as an externality.
loopz 7y ago
Is democracy important enough? Btw, the issue here isn't ads, but the data and usage of data.
striking 7y ago
> ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), We already have rules about this, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421fece37367c91d3&mc=true&node=pt16.1.255&rgn=div5 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421...
makomk 7y ago
The Guardian considers their free speech very important, too. For example, almost all of the UK press is regulated by IPSO which (amongst other things) enforces accuracy standards. Except the Guardian. They've consistently refused to join because they think those restrictions on the press should only apply to the other lying publications who just so happen to have political views that don't agree with theirs. I discovered this after they published a really astounding partisan whopper about a London terror attack right before the UK election - one which was not only completely untrue and debunked all over the place, but was something being spread by their preferred party as part of an explicit attempt to politicise the attack against the ruling Tories. They didn't care to correct this, and given their position that independent regulation was only for the other papers there was nothing that could be done about this.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
Advertising is not free speech. If someone is paid to say or do anything publicly for a company then said people are not exercising free speech. They are providing a service with the intent to coerce people into using a companies services, in many cases, without an actual need for them. Advertising should be regulated more harshly than drug testing on unborn children. Every advertisement should come with warning labels at least as significant as cigarette warning labels.
- natecavanaugh 7y ago
  As an abstract concept, a company is a collection of individuals who have formed an agreement to perform certain actions with the intention of profit (profit may or may not be the core purpose of company though; eg the quote "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you’re missing something"). A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest example of being paid for advertising that is also clearly free speech. Where would you draw this line?
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
    A person shouting about their wares at a market (iow a sole propietor advertising their products through direct to customer advertising in a shopping area) is different than a multi-million ad designed and produced by dozens of people including professional social engineers that have studied psychology at the worlds top universities all so widget Co. can sell more widgets. I don't have a problem with people barking about their products when I'm at a market. But I do have problems with just about everything about modern corporate advertising. Merely listing every individual aspect I take offense too would take hours. I draw the line at the point where anything is exchanged, given, or recieved, tangible or otherwise, to allow someone/something/some co, to display, demonstrate, brand, or otherwise make known anything through an intermediary. To clarify. Having generic, unobtrusive signs pointing to food courts around a sports Arena where one can purchase food, that may or may not be served in branded containers is acceptable. Neon signs, or banners, or full advertisements on big screens, etc advertising some company that is not doing any business directly with the attendants at said Arena is unpalatable to me. Likewise, selling refreshments with branding foranything besides the establishment selling the item, or the company that manufactured the item is ridiculous.

franky47 7y ago

Adverts are not free speech. Public service announcements on billboards might be, like the band trying to promote their underground concert in town, or an association promoting a cultural event. But you can't put those in the same basket as big corporations paying multiple k$ for premium attention-grabbing spots with fancy graphics to make you dream of things you don't need.

betenoire 7y ago
Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the difference?
- franky47 7y ago
  If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.
  - ultrarunner 7y ago
    I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events. Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?
    - natecavanaugh 7y ago
      Likewise, I love Apple products, and wish for them to generate more revenue (ostensibly, more resources for them to improve said products and create new ones). I neither work for Apple nor have any vested financial interest in saying so (no stock in the company, no relatives that work for them, and zero way that their increased revenues in any way impacts my bank account or the bank account of anyone I know). Is my promotion of them, which in some ways feeds my ego (for making such wise purchasing decisions) and makes my life easier via a larger user base to compare notes with, find support, etc, considered free speech, or advertising? Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system It's not practical. Even if people were taught and learned that, you can't expect them to stand on their own against an entire industry, which pays top dollar for the best and brightest in psychology and cognitive science to work full-time on manipulating people. The arms race favors the attacking side very strongly here. It'd be hard to eradicate advertising with legal means, but I'm confident the most egregious forms could be made not worth the money. Advertising will be a problem for as long as malice exists, but so will theft and murder, and somehow we manage to prevent the latter two from disrupting society too much.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I agree that it's likely impossible in a system where free expression is the bedrock of our society - to the point where advertising is a massive portion of our economy. I still feel strongly that advertising should not exist and think it's on par with CO2 as an externality.

loopz 7y ago

Is democracy important enough? Btw, the issue here isn't ads, but the data and usage of data.

striking 7y ago

> ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), We already have rules about this, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421fece37367c91d3&mc=true&node=pt16.1.255&rgn=div5 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421...

makomk 7y ago

The Guardian considers their free speech very important, too. For example, almost all of the UK press is regulated by IPSO which (amongst other things) enforces accuracy standards. Except the Guardian. They've consistently refused to join because they think those restrictions on the press should only apply to the other lying publications who just so happen to have political views that don't agree with theirs. I discovered this after they published a really astounding partisan whopper about a London terror attack right before the UK election - one which was not only completely untrue and debunked all over the place, but was something being spread by their preferred party as part of an explicit attempt to politicise the attack against the ruling Tories. They didn't care to correct this, and given their position that independent regulation was only for the other papers there was nothing that could be done about this.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago

Advertising is not free speech. If someone is paid to say or do anything publicly for a company then said people are not exercising free speech. They are providing a service with the intent to coerce people into using a companies services, in many cases, without an actual need for them. Advertising should be regulated more harshly than drug testing on unborn children. Every advertisement should come with warning labels at least as significant as cigarette warning labels.

natecavanaugh 7y ago
As an abstract concept, a company is a collection of individuals who have formed an agreement to perform certain actions with the intention of profit (profit may or may not be the core purpose of company though; eg the quote "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you’re missing something"). A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest example of being paid for advertising that is also clearly free speech. Where would you draw this line?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
  A person shouting about their wares at a market (iow a sole propietor advertising their products through direct to customer advertising in a shopping area) is different than a multi-million ad designed and produced by dozens of people including professional social engineers that have studied psychology at the worlds top universities all so widget Co. can sell more widgets. I don't have a problem with people barking about their products when I'm at a market. But I do have problems with just about everything about modern corporate advertising. Merely listing every individual aspect I take offense too would take hours. I draw the line at the point where anything is exchanged, given, or recieved, tangible or otherwise, to allow someone/something/some co, to display, demonstrate, brand, or otherwise make known anything through an intermediary. To clarify. Having generic, unobtrusive signs pointing to food courts around a sports Arena where one can purchase food, that may or may not be served in branded containers is acceptable. Neon signs, or banners, or full advertisements on big screens, etc advertising some company that is not doing any business directly with the attendants at said Arena is unpalatable to me. Likewise, selling refreshments with branding foranything besides the establishment selling the item, or the company that manufactured the item is ridiculous.