There are still loopholes. The examples you give are things I agree are wrong. But yea, agreed, that shit is unethical to varying degrees. The practice of sligh

There are still loopholes. The examples you give are things I agree are wrong. But yea, agreed, that shit is unethical to varying degrees. The practice of slightly changing the spelling of words to no longer have legal definitions is one of those loopholes that I abhor. Chocolatey Chips vs Chocolate Chips? Footlong vs foot long? Cheese-based product vs cheese? I don't know how they ethically defend what they do. (Side note: Some of the most effective ad campaigns of all time, and some of the most revered in the industry, came out of DDB in the 60s. Their trick: in a sea of blatant lies and deceptions, they told the truth. Instead of saying "this is an amazing car", they'd say "this is a small car for people who don't want large ones". It worked, and they proved that respecting the consumer was not only moral but good for business, too. If you don't think today's regulations have had any meaningful impact, I recommend taking a look at the ads that came out before regulation.) The distinction about lawsuits vs criminal prosecution is something you'll have to take up with the legal system. I don't know why it is that if a corporation does something illegal, the only recourse is usually financial, where as when a person does the same thing, jail time is on the table. To your comments on context, I genuinely apologize, I wasn't reading other comments in the greater thread, only the ones in response to what I initially posted (because if you took the time to read what I wrote and replied, I feel I owe you a response in return). I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. I 100% agree my job is to sell products. Others in the greater thread and in my industry may believe their jobs are more altruistic than that. I can't speak for them. I'm certainly not a saint, and simply aim to avoid doing work that I'd consider harmful to anyone. I disagree that selling products is inherently bad. I maintain that if the product is good, then promoting it is good or at least neutral -- with the previously noted exceptions for deceptive advertising. I don't agree with your contention about the vast majority of advertising being dishonest, but I'm not sure either of us is prepared to conduct a proper and objective study on the matter. We probably both have confirmation bias on this issue. > You can't have it both ways. Either: > 1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job... > 2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers. I would propose a third option, spinning off of option 2 that you presented: Advertisers sell products. Some of them care about whether the products are good for people, some don't. Some of them care about whether their advertising is honest, some don't. I think the idea that the act of promotion (advertising) is what's wrong with the world is putting the cart before the horse. Fix the product. Fix the business. The advertising will follow suit. If you think that's naive, you may be right. But it's how I think about the matter. Honest businesses produce honest advertising. Dishonest businesses don't.