3 ms·

I propose a law, that states that advertising is only permitted in certain locations, in certain industries (phonebooks, highway ads, TV stations), and that any

I propose a law, that states that advertising is only permitted in certain locations, in certain industries (phonebooks, highway ads, TV stations), and that anywhere else, it is completely illegal to advertise, full stop. Do not even think about advertising there if it's not on the short list. If you want to advertise on a product, no money must exchange hands, or Congress must pass an amendment. EDIT: Forgot when writing this down (been thinking about this for a while), but this would only apply to Publicly traded companies.

seydor 4y ago
good. let's run some ads to pass that law
elicash 4y ago
So you start a t-shirt business online, and you can only advertise in those places instead of Instagram? Seems bad for the business. Would be very profitable for tv stations, though! And we'd see a ton more billboards covering everything.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Well, in that case, I would just say that my law only applies to Publicly traded companies. That would cover all the Apples, Samsungs, Rokus, and so forth of the world which is what we care about most, I think.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    Since you're already making carve outs, here's $100,000 for your reelection campaign if you exclude Apple, too. Ethical marketing is a hard problem to solve, I don't think the best solution is focusing on where it happens, instead it should be focused on how it's happening (targeting) and what the content is.
colejohnson66 4y ago
That'll never stand up to a First Amendment lawsuit
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. In many states, if you sell a product, the government can compel you to put speech on your product (such as, for tobacco, giant warnings about addiction.) In my home state, Minnesota, advertising certain products (like adult-themed stores) is banned on highway billboards. If that is legal, you could maybe at least force a giant black-and-white text warning covering up half the side of TV saying, "Warning: Contains non-removable built-in advertising and user behavior tracking features." If you were really nasty, you could force a "sin tax" on the manufacturer for doing so - just charging 10% per product with built-in advertising would quickly end the practice. Treat advertising like tobacco - even that would be a start.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Treating advertisements like tobacco would mean giving the FDA control over what people and read. Definitely a First Amendment problem.
    - anotherman554 4y ago
      Well first of all tell us how we should read the first amendment. Do we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed or what the language of the amendment says, or some other doctrine? Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        > Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all. A dangerous line of thinking. If we're just going to keep what the Founding Fathers said as the only standard for the First Amendment, then only the Federal government would be bound by it. States could could still pass their own laws that punish the exercise of individual rights, free speech included. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases
magic_hamster 4y ago
This is a brilliant idea, however there are a few problems. The first is that for better or worse, you could bring down a lot of services, businesses, content creators (i.e. YouTube) and most likely a great many people will lose their job. The second problem is, this is probably not going to fly against freedom of speech, because it's effectively censorship of a certain kind. And if it does pass, what could be the next flavor of communication to be outlawed? Maybe it's not something you're going to like. I much prefer blocking ads (which I've come to be incredibly effective at), and still have the law allow people to advertise. And I hate ads with a passion! But the alternative could be worse.
mateo411 4y ago
I think we would have to change the 1st Amendment to make this type of law constitutional.
andsoitis 4y ago
Wouldn’t it be better to enumerate what’s prohibited rather than what’s allowed?
ccouzens 4y ago
How do you tell if something is advertising? Is a sportsperson wearing a brand because they like it or because they're being paid to wear it?
kjkjadksj 4y ago
Highway ads are bad because they distract drivers. Some states like AK and VT have banned billboard already.
tzs 4y ago
So if a publicly traded company wants to advertise on TV they either have to find a TV station that will run their ad for free or they have to buy a TV station, because of the requirement that no money change hands for the ad?
cwkoss 4y ago
Highway ads are a public safety risk and should be banned, IMO
- amelius 4y ago
  Also just about any type of advertisement stimulates overconsumption. Banning ads right now seems like a sensible thing to do if we want to reach climate goals.
amelius 4y ago
Let's also ban professions in advertising. I mean, we did it for prostitution, so it could work?

seydor 4y ago

good. let's run some ads to pass that law

elicash 4y ago

So you start a t-shirt business online, and you can only advertise in those places instead of Instagram? Seems bad for the business. Would be very profitable for tv stations, though! And we'd see a ton more billboards covering everything.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Well, in that case, I would just say that my law only applies to Publicly traded companies. That would cover all the Apples, Samsungs, Rokus, and so forth of the world which is what we care about most, I think.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Since you're already making carve outs, here's $100,000 for your reelection campaign if you exclude Apple, too. Ethical marketing is a hard problem to solve, I don't think the best solution is focusing on where it happens, instead it should be focused on how it's happening (targeting) and what the content is.

colejohnson66 4y ago

That'll never stand up to a First Amendment lawsuit

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I'm not so sure about that. In many states, if you sell a product, the government can compel you to put speech on your product (such as, for tobacco, giant warnings about addiction.) In my home state, Minnesota, advertising certain products (like adult-themed stores) is banned on highway billboards. If that is legal, you could maybe at least force a giant black-and-white text warning covering up half the side of TV saying, "Warning: Contains non-removable built-in advertising and user behavior tracking features." If you were really nasty, you could force a "sin tax" on the manufacturer for doing so - just charging 10% per product with built-in advertising would quickly end the practice. Treat advertising like tobacco - even that would be a start.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  Treating advertisements like tobacco would mean giving the FDA control over what people and read. Definitely a First Amendment problem.
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    Well first of all tell us how we should read the first amendment. Do we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed or what the language of the amendment says, or some other doctrine? Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all. A dangerous line of thinking. If we're just going to keep what the Founding Fathers said as the only standard for the First Amendment, then only the Federal government would be bound by it. States could could still pass their own laws that punish the exercise of individual rights, free speech included. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

magic_hamster 4y ago

This is a brilliant idea, however there are a few problems. The first is that for better or worse, you could bring down a lot of services, businesses, content creators (i.e. YouTube) and most likely a great many people will lose their job. The second problem is, this is probably not going to fly against freedom of speech, because it's effectively censorship of a certain kind. And if it does pass, what could be the next flavor of communication to be outlawed? Maybe it's not something you're going to like. I much prefer blocking ads (which I've come to be incredibly effective at), and still have the law allow people to advertise. And I hate ads with a passion! But the alternative could be worse.

mateo411 4y ago

I think we would have to change the 1st Amendment to make this type of law constitutional.

andsoitis 4y ago

Wouldn’t it be better to enumerate what’s prohibited rather than what’s allowed?

ccouzens 4y ago

How do you tell if something is advertising? Is a sportsperson wearing a brand because they like it or because they're being paid to wear it?

kjkjadksj 4y ago

Highway ads are bad because they distract drivers. Some states like AK and VT have banned billboard already.

tzs 4y ago

So if a publicly traded company wants to advertise on TV they either have to find a TV station that will run their ad for free or they have to buy a TV station, because of the requirement that no money change hands for the ad?

cwkoss 4y ago

Highway ads are a public safety risk and should be banned, IMO

amelius 4y ago
Also just about any type of advertisement stimulates overconsumption. Banning ads right now seems like a sensible thing to do if we want to reach climate goals.

amelius 4y ago

Let's also ban professions in advertising. I mean, we did it for prostitution, so it could work?