4 ms·

For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. For society at larg

For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic.

zepto 6y ago
> For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. Why is it unethical? > For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic. It does amplify the voices of the rich, but you are making it sounds like it only amplifies the speech of the rich, which is not true. It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising, regardless of whether they are rich or not. That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. I see legitimate criticism of capitalist wealth accumulation feedback loops (which could be fixed e.g. with a wealth tax) in what you are saying, but no valid argument that advertising is inherently unethical.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  > That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. > Why is it unethical? If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, This makes no sense. Yes, advertising can by deceiving people about how beneficial a product is. It can also work simply by informing someone about possible benefits of a product the otherwise wouldn’t be aware of. > and we wouldn't be having this discussion. See above. You are affirming the consequent here. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. Obviously false. My local coffee shop started by Latino immigrants advertises their coffee. I started buying their coffee as a result. They are not rich. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice You are going to have to explain what “1 voice” means. Does it mean no speaking to more than one person at a time? No public speeches? What exactly? > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. > Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. > There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce. Yes, and there are reasons speech is protected from such laws. I see that you are wholeheartedly confirming that you would have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about anyone’s products.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      > Yes, advertising can by deceiving people about how beneficial a product is. It can also work simply by informing someone about possible benefits of a product the otherwise wouldn’t be aware of. These are just the same thing spun different ways. > Obviously false. My local coffee shop started by Latino immigrants advertises their coffee. I started buying their coffee as a result. They are not rich. If they own the coffee shop themselves then yes, they definitely as rich. If not, well, they work on behalf of, under the control of, and for the benefit of their rich investors. > You are going to have to explain what “1 voice” means. Does it mean no speaking to more than one person at a time? No public speeches? What exactly? No coercing other people to amplify your message. Surely this would be obvious from the context? > Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. Why? > I see that you are wholeheartedly confirming that you would have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about anyone’s products. For the umpteenth time, you can criminalize buyers and marketplaces without criminalizing sellers. It's not even a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prost...

zepto 6y ago

> For the transaction itself: the payment you get incentivizes you to portray it in a positive light, rather than giving your honest opinion. That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. Why is it unethical? > For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic. It does amplify the voices of the rich, but you are making it sounds like it only amplifies the speech of the rich, which is not true. It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising, regardless of whether they are rich or not. That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. I see legitimate criticism of capitalist wealth accumulation feedback loops (which could be fixed e.g. with a wealth tax) in what you are saying, but no valid argument that advertising is inherently unethical.

Nullabillity 6y ago
> That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer. > Why is it unethical? If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce.
- zepto 6y ago
  > If people were good at actually taking that into account then advertising wouldn't be effective, This makes no sense. Yes, advertising can by deceiving people about how beneficial a product is. It can also work simply by informing someone about possible benefits of a product the otherwise wouldn’t be aware of. > and we wouldn't be having this discussion. See above. You are affirming the consequent here. > It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising AKA (a subset of) rich people. Obviously false. My local coffee shop started by Latino immigrants advertises their coffee. I started buying their coffee as a result. They are not rich. > That is fundamentally democratic. It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 voice You are going to have to explain what “1 voice” means. Does it mean no speaking to more than one person at a time? No public speeches? What exactly? > To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies. > Is it wrong that it's illegal for the police to let you off with a warning in exchange for a bribe? Is it wrong that it's illegal to sell votes? Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. > There are plenty of things that are legal to do of your own volition, but are illegal to sell. That's not a restriction on the performing those deeds in themselves, it's a restriction on commerce. Yes, and there are reasons speech is protected from such laws. I see that you are wholeheartedly confirming that you would have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about anyone’s products.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    > Yes, advertising can by deceiving people about how beneficial a product is. It can also work simply by informing someone about possible benefits of a product the otherwise wouldn’t be aware of. These are just the same thing spun different ways. > Obviously false. My local coffee shop started by Latino immigrants advertises their coffee. I started buying their coffee as a result. They are not rich. If they own the coffee shop themselves then yes, they definitely as rich. If not, well, they work on behalf of, under the control of, and for the benefit of their rich investors. > You are going to have to explain what “1 voice” means. Does it mean no speaking to more than one person at a time? No public speeches? What exactly? No coercing other people to amplify your message. Surely this would be obvious from the context? > Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. Why? > I see that you are wholeheartedly confirming that you would have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about anyone’s products. For the umpteenth time, you can criminalize buyers and marketplaces without criminalizing sellers. It's not even a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prost...