5 ms·

*removed for being rude > Attracting public attention is not theft of attention. Yes it is; you don't have the consent of the public to have it; it is ergo th

*removed for being rude > Attracting public attention is not theft of attention. Yes it is; you don't have the consent of the public to have it; it is ergo theft. And indicative of an entitled mindset worryingly common in other malicious groups.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> Sounds like a paid thief getting nervous about a truth hitting a little too close to home. Clearly an accusation that violates the HN site guidelines. Mob bullying at its best, defending an academic endeavor of ethical advertising is not evidence of participation in said endeavor. > you don’t have the consent of the public I believe the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, as pertains to the privacy expectation of your garbage on the side of the street: there is no such expectation of privacy. It naturally follows that being in public is de-facto consent to being exposed to the public sphere, which includes things such as public advertising.
- textgel 5y ago
  There are bans in numerous places around the world against people going up and bothering people to sell tickets etc. Seems the understanding is there, we just need to progress as a society and take it further.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Person-to-person contact is a different category of human interaction than that of a flyover advertisement or a billboard presentation. I’m concerned that self-righteousness is superseding real societal progress, here. Setting aside ones emotional reactions goes a long way in illuminating the core ethical and philosophical differences. Those are the things that need to be revised. In this case, one clear avenue to resolve the advertising wars is to make it legislatively clear as to which party is at fault: the party that gave the consent or the party that created the circumstances within which consent was given. In academic research, the principles are clear: it is the duty of the researchers to provide informed consent. There is no such clarity, in the United States, as to what extent business are required to provide and enforce informed consent. Apple is going a long way on this topic with the privacy nutrition labels, and it would be quite the win for free-market economists if Apple were to resolve this problem outside of the legal system, but Google and Facebook are the companies built on advertising, not Apple. How will society legislate that Google and Facebook must ensure that consent was given? Arguing that advertising should be abolished is like arguing that the news should be abolished. Do we need laws that specify that new product announcements can only happen in the context of news articles?
- jjulius 5y ago
  >I believe the US Supreme Court has already weighed in... It naturally follows that... Being deemed legally permissible does not make that same action morally acceptible. To you, perhaps, but certainly not to others.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Moral repugnance doesn’t make it legally impermissible either, and for good reason.
- 8note 5y ago
  I'm at home in my house when I see the advertisement, not in public
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    You may have unintentionally consented to being advertised to by participating in activities that allow the outside world to reach into your house.
kapp_in_life 5y ago
You consent when you download the content. You are not obligated to use Youtube, but if you want to watch funny cat videos for free there you have done so with the understanding you'll be shown ads. This is as silly as "taxation is theft", you consent to being taxed when you participate in society(whether that be buying goods, or being paid for producing goods).
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> And indicative of an entitled mindset worryingly common in other malicious groups. You should have edited this out as well for being against HN guidelines, too.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

> Sounds like a paid thief getting nervous about a truth hitting a little too close to home. Clearly an accusation that violates the HN site guidelines. Mob bullying at its best, defending an academic endeavor of ethical advertising is not evidence of participation in said endeavor. > you don’t have the consent of the public I believe the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, as pertains to the privacy expectation of your garbage on the side of the street: there is no such expectation of privacy. It naturally follows that being in public is de-facto consent to being exposed to the public sphere, which includes things such as public advertising.

textgel 5y ago
There are bans in numerous places around the world against people going up and bothering people to sell tickets etc. Seems the understanding is there, we just need to progress as a society and take it further.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Person-to-person contact is a different category of human interaction than that of a flyover advertisement or a billboard presentation. I’m concerned that self-righteousness is superseding real societal progress, here. Setting aside ones emotional reactions goes a long way in illuminating the core ethical and philosophical differences. Those are the things that need to be revised. In this case, one clear avenue to resolve the advertising wars is to make it legislatively clear as to which party is at fault: the party that gave the consent or the party that created the circumstances within which consent was given. In academic research, the principles are clear: it is the duty of the researchers to provide informed consent. There is no such clarity, in the United States, as to what extent business are required to provide and enforce informed consent. Apple is going a long way on this topic with the privacy nutrition labels, and it would be quite the win for free-market economists if Apple were to resolve this problem outside of the legal system, but Google and Facebook are the companies built on advertising, not Apple. How will society legislate that Google and Facebook must ensure that consent was given? Arguing that advertising should be abolished is like arguing that the news should be abolished. Do we need laws that specify that new product announcements can only happen in the context of news articles?
jjulius 5y ago
>I believe the US Supreme Court has already weighed in... It naturally follows that... Being deemed legally permissible does not make that same action morally acceptible. To you, perhaps, but certainly not to others.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Moral repugnance doesn’t make it legally impermissible either, and for good reason.
8note 5y ago
I'm at home in my house when I see the advertisement, not in public
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  You may have unintentionally consented to being advertised to by participating in activities that allow the outside world to reach into your house.

kapp_in_life 5y ago

You consent when you download the content. You are not obligated to use Youtube, but if you want to watch funny cat videos for free there you have done so with the understanding you'll be shown ads. This is as silly as "taxation is theft", you consent to being taxed when you participate in society(whether that be buying goods, or being paid for producing goods).

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

> And indicative of an entitled mindset worryingly common in other malicious groups. You should have edited this out as well for being against HN guidelines, too.