I think there's value in describing advertising for what it actually is, paying someone else to lie for you. You can talk about how it's necessary for businesse

I think there's value in describing advertising for what it actually is, paying someone else to lie for you. You can talk about how it's necessary for businesses to let the "public know about their products", but you can't really get around this description of it. It's pretty inconsistent with the idea of free speech, but supposed defenders of free speech don't seem to have any problem with paid speech. A lot of advertising is negative, not in the sense of attack ads, but in what it is that you agree not to say, for money. When advertisers pull "funding" when a platform doesn't censor "swear words", the lack of swear words is now an advertisement. Do we really think that there is a consistent definition of free speech which is compatible with advertising? Freedom and anarchy are different.