4 ms·

Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? What

by berkes 5y ago

Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? What is allowed and tolerated in that public space is skewed, an unfair. Certainly not balanced.

duxup 5y ago
It sounds like you just substitute what you don’t like for what want to see? I don’t think that had anything to do with what I said. Although I’m curious What would a not “skewed” public space looks like, and how do you manage that?
- rolph 5y ago
  the whole point is you dont manage a public space, we do. the public space is a construct of what we allow it to be
- berkes 5y ago
  If I sounded like that, I should have spent more effort. Sorry. What I was trying to bring across, is that it is "public space" which implies it equally belongs to everyone. But that this is not the case for what you are allowed to advertise. Corporations, or at least "those with connections and/or money" are allowed to be heard a lot more than anyone who lacks these connections or funds. I call that "skewed". A fair and level "public space" would give anyone, regardless of how much money, connections or lawyers they have, the same ability to present their message. I am not saying that this would always be a good thing; because this probably means far more advertising noise. It would probably turn our streets into a printed version of twitter. Ugh. I am trying to say that in order to make this less skewed, "those with money, connections and/or lawyers" should also not be allowed to use that public space to deliver their messages. That is a level playing field too!
marklubi 5y ago
> Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? You are certainly allowed to. Pony up for the ad space if you want to promote the opposite, or advertise something else entirely.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  This is war, ain't no rules. No such thing as "allowed."
- standardUser 5y ago
  Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense.
  - marklubi 5y ago
    > Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense. Nothing I stated made any sort of judgement about whether or not something should or should not be advertised. The original statement (quoted in my previous response) was that someone opposed to an advertisement was "not allowed" to oppose that promotion. Quite frankly, nobody should be in charge of regulating the messaging. That sounds like top-down control which does nothing but solidify the positions of people/organizations that are already in power and can afford to lobby for such regulations. It's often known as regulatory capture. There are clearly groups of people that "oppose harmful things" (which is quite vague, but I digress), and have carved out parts of the market that agree with them (e.g., organic foods) and are quite profitable.
- berkes 5y ago
  I am not allowed to use Advertising Channels to defame a brand. I am not even allowed to mention a brand. At least, this is how it is in my country ("enforced" by Reclame Code Commissie) where a committee that oversees the Ad industry can prohibit advertisers from using that infrastructure. Basically: if you propose a billboard saying "Coca Cola Is Proven[cite] Bad For Your Health" you won't be granted any space. And even if you find a space not monopolized by such committees, you'll be taken to court by expensive lawyers over defamation or trademark infringment or any other silly thing.
drorco 5y ago
I think there's never an end to it. A paleo fan will think the same about a vegan/carbs ad, and so would an anti-vaxxer about a conventional health poster. Harmful ideas can, and will reach those who are susceptible to it. I think the right way to oppose harmful ideas, is by gaining the education that would allow you, and others in society to judge such ideas. The alternative of forbidding ads in public, is essentially censorship and making society even weaker as one way or another, harmful ideas will reach each and every one of us, and when they do, the less susceptible we are, the better.
thepasswordis 5y ago
Because whoever owns the space where they're placing the billboard lets them? What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house, should they be allowed to change it because it can be seen from the public space?
- berkes 5y ago
  > What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house I'm quite certain that if I painted my house white and red with silver curly letters on it spelling "Cola is Sugar" there'd be multiple laws that expensive lawyers can help enforce. Those laws (trademark, libel, etc) practically grant large corporations from taking over public space. In my country there's committees (seated by advertising industry) that monopolize the space and enforce this in even greater detail. Hell, we even have committees that tell what color you are allowed to paint your front-door (Schoonheidscommitee). This latter, however, is democratically ruled (local govts) so something that Coca Cola has no seat in. So the answer to your question is: yes. They already can, while the opposite is not possible. But the question itself is actually a false dichotomy. Me being able to oppose Coca Cola on their own turf: by running a campaign against them, does not imply that Coca Cola can automatically then decide the color of my house.

by berkes 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

It sounds like you just substitute what you don’t like for what want to see? I don’t think that had anything to do with what I said. Although I’m curious What would a not “skewed” public space looks like, and how do you manage that?

rolph 5y ago
the whole point is you dont manage a public space, we do. the public space is a construct of what we allow it to be
berkes 5y ago
If I sounded like that, I should have spent more effort. Sorry. What I was trying to bring across, is that it is "public space" which implies it equally belongs to everyone. But that this is not the case for what you are allowed to advertise. Corporations, or at least "those with connections and/or money" are allowed to be heard a lot more than anyone who lacks these connections or funds. I call that "skewed". A fair and level "public space" would give anyone, regardless of how much money, connections or lawyers they have, the same ability to present their message. I am not saying that this would always be a good thing; because this probably means far more advertising noise. It would probably turn our streets into a printed version of twitter. Ugh. I am trying to say that in order to make this less skewed, "those with money, connections and/or lawyers" should also not be allowed to use that public space to deliver their messages. That is a level playing field too!

marklubi 5y ago

> Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? You are certainly allowed to. Pony up for the ad space if you want to promote the opposite, or advertise something else entirely.

DarylZero 5y ago
This is war, ain't no rules. No such thing as "allowed."
standardUser 5y ago
Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense.
- marklubi 5y ago
  > Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense. Nothing I stated made any sort of judgement about whether or not something should or should not be advertised. The original statement (quoted in my previous response) was that someone opposed to an advertisement was "not allowed" to oppose that promotion. Quite frankly, nobody should be in charge of regulating the messaging. That sounds like top-down control which does nothing but solidify the positions of people/organizations that are already in power and can afford to lobby for such regulations. It's often known as regulatory capture. There are clearly groups of people that "oppose harmful things" (which is quite vague, but I digress), and have carved out parts of the market that agree with them (e.g., organic foods) and are quite profitable.
berkes 5y ago
I am not allowed to use Advertising Channels to defame a brand. I am not even allowed to mention a brand. At least, this is how it is in my country ("enforced" by Reclame Code Commissie) where a committee that oversees the Ad industry can prohibit advertisers from using that infrastructure. Basically: if you propose a billboard saying "Coca Cola Is Proven[cite] Bad For Your Health" you won't be granted any space. And even if you find a space not monopolized by such committees, you'll be taken to court by expensive lawyers over defamation or trademark infringment or any other silly thing.

drorco 5y ago

I think there's never an end to it. A paleo fan will think the same about a vegan/carbs ad, and so would an anti-vaxxer about a conventional health poster. Harmful ideas can, and will reach those who are susceptible to it. I think the right way to oppose harmful ideas, is by gaining the education that would allow you, and others in society to judge such ideas. The alternative of forbidding ads in public, is essentially censorship and making society even weaker as one way or another, harmful ideas will reach each and every one of us, and when they do, the less susceptible we are, the better.

thepasswordis 5y ago

Because whoever owns the space where they're placing the billboard lets them? What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house, should they be allowed to change it because it can be seen from the public space?

berkes 5y ago
> What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house I'm quite certain that if I painted my house white and red with silver curly letters on it spelling "Cola is Sugar" there'd be multiple laws that expensive lawyers can help enforce. Those laws (trademark, libel, etc) practically grant large corporations from taking over public space. In my country there's committees (seated by advertising industry) that monopolize the space and enforce this in even greater detail. Hell, we even have committees that tell what color you are allowed to paint your front-door (Schoonheidscommitee). This latter, however, is democratically ruled (local govts) so something that Coca Cola has no seat in. So the answer to your question is: yes. They already can, while the opposite is not possible. But the question itself is actually a false dichotomy. Me being able to oppose Coca Cola on their own turf: by running a campaign against them, does not imply that Coca Cola can automatically then decide the color of my house.