5 ms·

It's an unworkable idea. What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? Is a sponsor

by tqi 5y ago

It's an unworkable idea. What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? Is a sponsored social media post? A celebrity endorsement? Free products given to athletes in the hopes that they will be seen using it? Logos on clothing? Is the standard just "I know it when I see it"? Also (in the US) it almost certain runs afoul of the First Amendment.

kerkeslager 5y ago
> What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? I agree that Consumer Reports does include some advertising, but it's not necessary for their business model to work--consumer reports predated the internet by over 50 years, so it certainly predated affiliate links. At least at some points their primary source of income was subscriptions, and judging by how hard it is to get at most of their reviews without a subscription, that continues to be a significant revenue stream for them. > Is a sponsored social media post? A celebrity endorsement? Free products given to athletes in the hopes that they will be seen using it? Logos on clothing? Is the standard just "I know it when I see it"? While I agree that we need a clear definition of an ad to encode this to law, I don't buy this feigned confusion as a valid argument that we can't or shouldn't legislate against ads. Obviously we need to work out a clearer definition than "I know it when I see it" to legislate effectively, but it's absurd to claim that I need to present a fully-written legal code in order to present a valid opinion on Hacker News. We may disagree about free products given to athletes in the hopes that they'll be seen wearing them, for example. But if you claim not to know that a 30 second video clip in the middle of your TV show telling you that you should drink Budweiser to pick up chicks is both an ad and a harmful lie, you're not arguing in good faith. This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution. The first implementation of this law wouldn't be perfect. We'd need to iterate on it. But even a ban against a very narrow definition of ads would be extremely beneficial. Since you haven't even disagreed with my statement of the problem, perhaps you agree that advertising is bad, and would like to draft some sample legislation that solves that problem to your satisfaction? > Also (in the US) it almost certain runs afoul of the First Amendment. While current judicial precedent defines corporations as people, that's clearly a terrible mistake. Corporations aren't people and as such the first amendment does not apply to them. Yes, I know, there's some grey area where restricting the rights of corporations might restrict the rights of individuals: remember what I said about implementation details? Overturning judicial precedent is a legal hurdle to get over to get rid of advertising, but it isn't a logical problem with the solution. Just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
- tqi 5y ago
  > But if you claim not to know that a 30 second video clip in the middle of your TV show... The obvious cases are not what make this unworkable, it's the edges. Is a paid product placement an ad? Is simply furnishing clothes for the actors to wear on set an ad? Your original suggestion was that this letter didn't go far enough, and that we need to ban advertising altogether. But it actually seems like what you actually mean is that some additional forms of ads you find objectionable should be banned. I personally have no problem with ads if it means I don't have to pay for stuff with money. But you asked why people downvoted you, and that was my answer.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    There are two very large logical leaps you've made here: 1. You've leaped from "we haven't discussed what details would make this work" to "it's unworkable". As I said before: obviously details need to be worked out. Your answer to why people downvoted me is basically that I didn't draft fully-formed legislation before presenting the idea on HN. If you'd like to discuss details, I'd be happy to do so, but saying "it's unworkable" outright without hearing those details, or worse, downvoting without explanation, are not ways to continue that discussion. 2. You've leaped from "the edge cases are unworkable" to "all the cases are unworkable". Are you willing to admit that a law against the case we've both agreed is obvious would be workable?
- SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago
  > This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution. On the contrary, these are fundamental questions that would need convincing answers for this discussion to move much further beyond what you have already articulated. Your statement of the problem concludes that "advertising is just never a good thing, in any context." Your proposed solution is to ban all advertising, allow "some companies to go under", but "good riddance" to them. These are extreme views, supported only by your fond memories of Ye Olde Internet, with little substance for us all to discuss.

by tqi 5y ago

kerkeslager 5y ago

> What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? I agree that Consumer Reports does include some advertising, but it's not necessary for their business model to work--consumer reports predated the internet by over 50 years, so it certainly predated affiliate links. At least at some points their primary source of income was subscriptions, and judging by how hard it is to get at most of their reviews without a subscription, that continues to be a significant revenue stream for them. > Is a sponsored social media post? A celebrity endorsement? Free products given to athletes in the hopes that they will be seen using it? Logos on clothing? Is the standard just "I know it when I see it"? While I agree that we need a clear definition of an ad to encode this to law, I don't buy this feigned confusion as a valid argument that we can't or shouldn't legislate against ads. Obviously we need to work out a clearer definition than "I know it when I see it" to legislate effectively, but it's absurd to claim that I need to present a fully-written legal code in order to present a valid opinion on Hacker News. We may disagree about free products given to athletes in the hopes that they'll be seen wearing them, for example. But if you claim not to know that a 30 second video clip in the middle of your TV show telling you that you should drink Budweiser to pick up chicks is both an ad and a harmful lie, you're not arguing in good faith. This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution. The first implementation of this law wouldn't be perfect. We'd need to iterate on it. But even a ban against a very narrow definition of ads would be extremely beneficial. Since you haven't even disagreed with my statement of the problem, perhaps you agree that advertising is bad, and would like to draft some sample legislation that solves that problem to your satisfaction? > Also (in the US) it almost certain runs afoul of the First Amendment. While current judicial precedent defines corporations as people, that's clearly a terrible mistake. Corporations aren't people and as such the first amendment does not apply to them. Yes, I know, there's some grey area where restricting the rights of corporations might restrict the rights of individuals: remember what I said about implementation details? Overturning judicial precedent is a legal hurdle to get over to get rid of advertising, but it isn't a logical problem with the solution. Just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

tqi 5y ago
> But if you claim not to know that a 30 second video clip in the middle of your TV show... The obvious cases are not what make this unworkable, it's the edges. Is a paid product placement an ad? Is simply furnishing clothes for the actors to wear on set an ad? Your original suggestion was that this letter didn't go far enough, and that we need to ban advertising altogether. But it actually seems like what you actually mean is that some additional forms of ads you find objectionable should be banned. I personally have no problem with ads if it means I don't have to pay for stuff with money. But you asked why people downvoted you, and that was my answer.
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  There are two very large logical leaps you've made here: 1. You've leaped from "we haven't discussed what details would make this work" to "it's unworkable". As I said before: obviously details need to be worked out. Your answer to why people downvoted me is basically that I didn't draft fully-formed legislation before presenting the idea on HN. If you'd like to discuss details, I'd be happy to do so, but saying "it's unworkable" outright without hearing those details, or worse, downvoting without explanation, are not ways to continue that discussion. 2. You've leaped from "the edge cases are unworkable" to "all the cases are unworkable". Are you willing to admit that a law against the case we've both agreed is obvious would be workable?
SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago
> This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution. On the contrary, these are fundamental questions that would need convincing answers for this discussion to move much further beyond what you have already articulated. Your statement of the problem concludes that "advertising is just never a good thing, in any context." Your proposed solution is to ban all advertising, allow "some companies to go under", but "good riddance" to them. These are extreme views, supported only by your fond memories of Ye Olde Internet, with little substance for us all to discuss.