4 ms·

> foster a sense of skepticism towards all advertising Here, here. I would go further and say that human society needs a universal convention that flags paid

> foster a sense of skepticism towards all advertising Here, here. I would go further and say that human society needs a universal convention that flags paid speech as such, and gives people a clear protocol to filter any (or all) paid communication.

Trickflick 7y ago
Sounds like (a polarized) wanting a yes/no-solution. Maybe for a speech solution you can use a transcript (speech to text converter) which stretches every possible text hyperlinking to (educating) extending webpages with further information hyperlinks, on a topic (wiki, translating pages,...) -what for sure let 'their' influence on you um grow and possibly become more polarized ? An example-try: Methods: language regulation, using evaluative Words telling shortend storys repetition boasting hints ma(s)king half-truth to truth So now, with that on your mind lets test the transcript adding hyperlinks using the named methods... (-;
tantalor 7y ago
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you filter the paid speech then it follows you should also filter out the actual art, cinema, theater, etc. it paid for. Now you are left with what?
- javajosh 7y ago
  I have to be honest, I'm not sure how to respond. The mean part of me wants to call you out for being stupid, the angry part for using a strawman, the compassionate part wants to dig in and fix your misunderstanding, the wise part wants to smile, shake my head, and ignore it. So, as usual, I go with the meta part of me and just describe the other parts and I'll let you pick.
  - dsl 7y ago
    You made absolutely no counter argument, and used way too many words to express your core point: "I'm a jerk."
    - dang 7y ago
      Whoa, even when a comment is bad, please don't respond with a worse one. That just takes the thread further in the wrong direction. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I don't read the GP comment as being a jerk so much as trying to at least avoid the most unproductive kinds of argument. Maybe it was a doomed experiment.
      - javajosh 7y ago
        Yes, it was something of an experiment. I knew that ignoring it was best but I had a lot of other reactions, and I'd never seen a comment like that before, so I gave it a shot. Live and learn!
  - dang 7y ago
    The problem with this is that you've ruled out the wise part by posting it.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  People actually cook lunch for each other all the time without making a sales pitch, this idea that nothing happens if Google isn't cutting checks is an extremely dim view of humanity.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    It isn't cynical but one which understands the value of specialization and ability to provide. If people cannot be supported doing X then doing better at it is limited. Said paid approach also has implicit patronage as wealth reserves the priveledge to devote a large ammount of resources including time and not get paid for it while monopolizing the prestiege and related benefits of it.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    How do you cook lunch over the Internet? Why are you hanging out on ad supported website right now?
    - jazzyjackson 7y ago
      Are you getting compensated for the content you produce here on hackernews?
Viliam1234 7y ago
We already have laws saying that advertising must be marked as such. And the advertising companies are trying to make the marks as invisible as possible. How little font size can you use? Maybe a size that a person with perfect eyesight can read, but older people cannot, and even the person with perfect eyesight would easily miss it, that is technically legal, isn't it? What if the font color is hard to distinguish from the background color? How far from the advertisement can the warning be placed? If there is a warning, and a small advertisement next to it, and then a longer unrelated text written in different visual style, but still on the same page, it is obvious that the warning applies also to that other text, right? Or, if you are Google, just say that "everyone knows" that the first two or three search results are paid for, so there is no reason to mark them explicitly. (EDIT: What words should you use for the warning. "Advertisement?" "Sponsored links?" Is it okay to use some words that 90% of your readers would not be sure what they mean, but technically they mean what they are supposed to?) Then there is the question of what exactly counts as "paid speech". If I send the money directly to you, obviously. If I instead send them to a charity you own? If there is no cash, but I give you hundred bottles of wine? Does it make a difference if you write wine reviews, and you use samples from my gift? If I send you a computer with pre-installed software that you review, and I tell you that you don't have to send the computer back when you are done? If I invite you for an expensive vacation... sorry, I meant "conference", paid by my company? Or what if I never give you anything, just offer to write the articles for you, so you can give them to your boss and take your salary without having to do any work? What if you actually pay me for writing the content, but I give you a discount if I can choose the topic? What if I offer free food for members of the press when they provide coverage for my event? What if no transaction ever happens, but I will simply provide coverage for my friends and ignore the people I don't know. I am not sure if a clear line can actually be made here. Taken to extreme, even private bloggers would not be allowed to write blogs about topics they are interested in, without providing some disclaimer like "the topic of this article was not chosen impartially". That would be silly, wouldn't it? But then, everyone with more obvious conflict of interest will claim that their case is analogical to this.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The answer to all your questions is the same as it has been for centuries: common law.

Trickflick 7y ago

Sounds like (a polarized) wanting a yes/no-solution. Maybe for a speech solution you can use a transcript (speech to text converter) which stretches every possible text hyperlinking to (educating) extending webpages with further information hyperlinks, on a topic (wiki, translating pages,...) -what for sure let 'their' influence on you um grow and possibly become more polarized ? An example-try: Methods: language regulation, using evaluative Words telling shortend storys repetition boasting hints ma(s)king half-truth to truth So now, with that on your mind lets test the transcript adding hyperlinks using the named methods... (-;

tantalor 7y ago

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you filter the paid speech then it follows you should also filter out the actual art, cinema, theater, etc. it paid for. Now you are left with what?

javajosh 7y ago
I have to be honest, I'm not sure how to respond. The mean part of me wants to call you out for being stupid, the angry part for using a strawman, the compassionate part wants to dig in and fix your misunderstanding, the wise part wants to smile, shake my head, and ignore it. So, as usual, I go with the meta part of me and just describe the other parts and I'll let you pick.
- dsl 7y ago
  You made absolutely no counter argument, and used way too many words to express your core point: "I'm a jerk."
  - dang 7y ago
    Whoa, even when a comment is bad, please don't respond with a worse one. That just takes the thread further in the wrong direction. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I don't read the GP comment as being a jerk so much as trying to at least avoid the most unproductive kinds of argument. Maybe it was a doomed experiment.
    - javajosh 7y ago
      Yes, it was something of an experiment. I knew that ignoring it was best but I had a lot of other reactions, and I'd never seen a comment like that before, so I gave it a shot. Live and learn!
- dang 7y ago
  The problem with this is that you've ruled out the wise part by posting it.
jazzyjackson 7y ago
People actually cook lunch for each other all the time without making a sales pitch, this idea that nothing happens if Google isn't cutting checks is an extremely dim view of humanity.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It isn't cynical but one which understands the value of specialization and ability to provide. If people cannot be supported doing X then doing better at it is limited. Said paid approach also has implicit patronage as wealth reserves the priveledge to devote a large ammount of resources including time and not get paid for it while monopolizing the prestiege and related benefits of it.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  How do you cook lunch over the Internet? Why are you hanging out on ad supported website right now?
  - jazzyjackson 7y ago
    Are you getting compensated for the content you produce here on hackernews?

Viliam1234 7y ago

We already have laws saying that advertising must be marked as such. And the advertising companies are trying to make the marks as invisible as possible. How little font size can you use? Maybe a size that a person with perfect eyesight can read, but older people cannot, and even the person with perfect eyesight would easily miss it, that is technically legal, isn't it? What if the font color is hard to distinguish from the background color? How far from the advertisement can the warning be placed? If there is a warning, and a small advertisement next to it, and then a longer unrelated text written in different visual style, but still on the same page, it is obvious that the warning applies also to that other text, right? Or, if you are Google, just say that "everyone knows" that the first two or three search results are paid for, so there is no reason to mark them explicitly. (EDIT: What words should you use for the warning. "Advertisement?" "Sponsored links?" Is it okay to use some words that 90% of your readers would not be sure what they mean, but technically they mean what they are supposed to?) Then there is the question of what exactly counts as "paid speech". If I send the money directly to you, obviously. If I instead send them to a charity you own? If there is no cash, but I give you hundred bottles of wine? Does it make a difference if you write wine reviews, and you use samples from my gift? If I send you a computer with pre-installed software that you review, and I tell you that you don't have to send the computer back when you are done? If I invite you for an expensive vacation... sorry, I meant "conference", paid by my company? Or what if I never give you anything, just offer to write the articles for you, so you can give them to your boss and take your salary without having to do any work? What if you actually pay me for writing the content, but I give you a discount if I can choose the topic? What if I offer free food for members of the press when they provide coverage for my event? What if no transaction ever happens, but I will simply provide coverage for my friends and ignore the people I don't know. I am not sure if a clear line can actually be made here. Taken to extreme, even private bloggers would not be allowed to write blogs about topics they are interested in, without providing some disclaimer like "the topic of this article was not chosen impartially". That would be silly, wouldn't it? But then, everyone with more obvious conflict of interest will claim that their case is analogical to this.

lonelappde 7y ago
The answer to all your questions is the same as it has been for centuries: common law.