3 ms·

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

• 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?