3 ms·

> D) Force businesses to buy ads to survive > Text: The bill would make it unlawful to do anything that "conditions access to the covered platform or preferred

> D) Force businesses to buy ads to survive > Text: The bill would make it unlawful to do anything that "conditions access to the covered platform or preferred status on the platform on the purchase or use of other products or services offered by the covered platform operator." > Analysis: This is very clearly aimed at advertising on Amazon, potentially Google as well, where merchants often must pay to gain visibility in the search results. Doesn't this basically outlaw ads? Aren't all ads "preferred status on the platform"? If I offer a product on amazon, and there are already hundreds of other people offering the same thing, who already have a lot of sales and reviews, how else should I be able to gain visibility other then by buying an ad?

bpye 5y ago
My take is to compare how ads are displayed today, vs maybe 10 years ago. Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content, and are typically at the top of any results. I would think that ads could still exist if organic results were still prioritised, and probably that the ads are clearly marked.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  > Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content If that's the problem then there should be specific rules addressing that. > and are typically at the top of any results. I don't think ads were ever not at the top of the results. > I would think that ads could still exist if organic results were still prioritised What does that mean concretely? How many organic results would have to be above the ads?
  - repsilat 5y ago
    >> Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content > If that's the problem then there should be specific rules addressing that. Honest question, why? If ads make the experience worse for users then the page owner will suffer and be vulnerable to competition. If they make the experience better (possibly by raising money to fund unrelated improvements) it's pro-consumer. Is the problem that it's deceitful? That it's fraud? That users are tricked into clicking a link? IMO the barrier to regulation should be pretty high, and I'm not sure this is something where the government needs to get involved. (Now, if the ad content appears to be attributed to someone, I guess that person could consider it defamatory. And if it's untrue or illegal I could see the page owner being liable. But "not clearly an ad" is too thin.)
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      I don't have a view on that. My point is just that specific rules addressing a specific problem are better then vague rules justified by a specific problem.
      - repsilat 5y ago
        Ah, thanks. I agree, and I think it'd be a good point to raise and consider even if I didn't.

bpye 5y ago

My take is to compare how ads are displayed today, vs maybe 10 years ago. Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content, and are typically at the top of any results. I would think that ads could still exist if organic results were still prioritised, and probably that the ads are clearly marked.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
> Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content If that's the problem then there should be specific rules addressing that. > and are typically at the top of any results. I don't think ads were ever not at the top of the results. > I would think that ads could still exist if organic results were still prioritised What does that mean concretely? How many organic results would have to be above the ads?
- repsilat 5y ago
  >> Ads today are almost indistinguishable from organic content > If that's the problem then there should be specific rules addressing that. Honest question, why? If ads make the experience worse for users then the page owner will suffer and be vulnerable to competition. If they make the experience better (possibly by raising money to fund unrelated improvements) it's pro-consumer. Is the problem that it's deceitful? That it's fraud? That users are tricked into clicking a link? IMO the barrier to regulation should be pretty high, and I'm not sure this is something where the government needs to get involved. (Now, if the ad content appears to be attributed to someone, I guess that person could consider it defamatory. And if it's untrue or illegal I could see the page owner being liable. But "not clearly an ad" is too thin.)
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    I don't have a view on that. My point is just that specific rules addressing a specific problem are better then vague rules justified by a specific problem.
    - repsilat 5y ago
      Ah, thanks. I agree, and I think it'd be a good point to raise and consider even if I didn't.