6 ms·

> 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 fundamenta

> 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.

kerkeslager 5y ago
> 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. Let's be clear here: I'm happy to discuss details of what I think would be good legislation here. Don't accuse me of not wanting the discussion to move forward. The discussion doesn't move forward from the assumption "it's unworkable". It also doesn't move forward from people downvoting without explanation. > These are extreme views, supported only by your fond memories of Ye Olde Internet, with little substance for us all to discuss. 1. The view I'm responding to is that corporations are people and therefore the corporate right to lie and manipulate the public in harmful ways is protected under free speech. Why is THAT not an extreme view in your mind? 2. "supported only by your fond memories of Ye Old Internet" ignores nearly my entire post. Which of the following passages is "fond memories of Ye Old Internet"? > Almost every problem with the internet right now is caused by advertising if you dig through the chain of causality. From social media patterns that addict you to conflict and conspiracy, to popups, adware and spam, to constant attacks on our attention even when we're driving and could literally kill someone with inattention, to spreading dissatisfaction, fear, and poor financial advice, advertising is the root of much evil. > And that leads me to my third reason advertising should be banned: it's infectious. Advertising is Scott Alexander's Moloch[9]--if one entity does it, then all their competitors have to do it in order to compete. The entire purpose of the free market is supposedly that it results in the best outcomes, but this is clearly a hack that prevents that from happening: we want companies to compete by producing the best goods and services at the lowest cost, but when you allow advertising, companies can (and do) compete by manipulating consumers into buying inferior goods at higher costs. Advertising is an anticompetitive business practice that undermines the entire purpose of a free market. Again, you don't get to accuse me of not pushing the conversation forward by not providing enough substance, when you ignore most of what I say. It's you that's trying to shut down the conversation by pretending I've given you nothing to respond to. Respond to what I've already said if you want to have a conversation.

kerkeslager 5y ago

> 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. Let's be clear here: I'm happy to discuss details of what I think would be good legislation here. Don't accuse me of not wanting the discussion to move forward. The discussion doesn't move forward from the assumption "it's unworkable". It also doesn't move forward from people downvoting without explanation. > These are extreme views, supported only by your fond memories of Ye Olde Internet, with little substance for us all to discuss. 1. The view I'm responding to is that corporations are people and therefore the corporate right to lie and manipulate the public in harmful ways is protected under free speech. Why is THAT not an extreme view in your mind? 2. "supported only by your fond memories of Ye Old Internet" ignores nearly my entire post. Which of the following passages is "fond memories of Ye Old Internet"? > Almost every problem with the internet right now is caused by advertising if you dig through the chain of causality. From social media patterns that addict you to conflict and conspiracy, to popups, adware and spam, to constant attacks on our attention even when we're driving and could literally kill someone with inattention, to spreading dissatisfaction, fear, and poor financial advice, advertising is the root of much evil. > And that leads me to my third reason advertising should be banned: it's infectious. Advertising is Scott Alexander's Moloch[9]--if one entity does it, then all their competitors have to do it in order to compete. The entire purpose of the free market is supposedly that it results in the best outcomes, but this is clearly a hack that prevents that from happening: we want companies to compete by producing the best goods and services at the lowest cost, but when you allow advertising, companies can (and do) compete by manipulating consumers into buying inferior goods at higher costs. Advertising is an anticompetitive business practice that undermines the entire purpose of a free market. Again, you don't get to accuse me of not pushing the conversation forward by not providing enough substance, when you ignore most of what I say. It's you that's trying to shut down the conversation by pretending I've given you nothing to respond to. Respond to what I've already said if you want to have a conversation.