3 ms·

> 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

> 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
> 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. It seems like you are saying that explaining the benefits of a product is always deception in your mind. Is there any kind of speech that doesn’t count as deception? > 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. What about if they own the business themselves bootstrapped with a small amount of family money which is now spent? All they ‘own’ is the business name and reputation and the right to continue working under that name to earn income. This is very common in food service businesses. Why does that make them rich? > 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? Who is talking about coercing anyone to do anything? > Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. > Why? Are you unable to make a distinction between speech acts and any other acts? It seems like you can’t be a supporter of freedom of speech. > 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, Weird. > 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_prost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prost... Although prostitution may involve speech, the criminalized part is not a speech act. There are obvious problems with criminalizing a market for speech even if you don’t criminalize the sellers. It seems like this would mean employees of companies would be unable to talk about their products. They are paid. What if they say something nice about their products?

> 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

> 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. It seems like you are saying that explaining the benefits of a product is always deception in your mind. Is there any kind of speech that doesn’t count as deception? > 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. What about if they own the business themselves bootstrapped with a small amount of family money which is now spent? All they ‘own’ is the business name and reputation and the right to continue working under that name to earn income. This is very common in food service businesses. Why does that make them rich? > 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? Who is talking about coercing anyone to do anything? > Neither of these are speech. It’s an absurd comparison. > Why? Are you unable to make a distinction between speech acts and any other acts? It seems like you can’t be a supporter of freedom of speech. > 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, Weird. > 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_prost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prost... Although prostitution may involve speech, the criminalized part is not a speech act. There are obvious problems with criminalizing a market for speech even if you don’t criminalize the sellers. It seems like this would mean employees of companies would be unable to talk about their products. They are paid. What if they say something nice about their products?