Let me be upfront about my bias: Since childhood I felt that TV commercials were a form of assault, assault on the mind. (So it wasn't too surprising to find

Let me be upfront about my bias: Since childhood I felt that TV commercials were a form of assault, assault on the mind. (So it wasn't too surprising to find out that it's literally the domestic use of war propaganda techniques. it's feels like assault because it is assault.) So, FWIW, I'm in favor of banning advertising more-or-less comprehensively. (And, yes, I realize that that sounds terrible to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's a good idea. That would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?) Anyhow, if you go look at the Wikipedia entry for "Neurolinguistic Programming" you'll see that it's coated in warnings that it's a pseudo-science. So that's where we stand today in re: state-of-the art persuasion technology. Most folks have never heard of NLP, many that have are openly skeptical (verging on hostile) and some people have entered into the Information Revolution proper. (Meaning they know and use this body of knowledge.) Given that we have allowed software to fall under patents, and that this knowledge constitutes the software of the mind, I'm reluctant to have it "go mainstream". I'd hate to imagine patent wars over IP that is essentially just structured thought... On the other hand, ignorance of the "operating system" of the mind causes unspeakable suffering. (I myself was cured of severe depression, just to add a personal, anecdotal, note.) And the differential between folks who know and folks who don't is also problematical. That would seem to argue in favor of rapid and widespread dissemination. Then there's the problem of the self-referential nature of persuasion and the limits thereof: can you limit persuasion if I can persuade you not to? Either persuasion tech doesn't work and so the laws are unnecessary, or it does work and can be used to affect its own regulation.