3 ms·

Galaxy brain: ban advertising everywhere, in all forms.

by erichocean 3y ago

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That seems like a slippery slope, as technically every comment on HN is advertising on behalf of the account owner.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Can you go a little further into this? I want to know how you equate normal conversation to advertisement, because to me that seems like the linguistics version of moral relativism.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    The dictionary definition of advertising, according to the OED excluding obsolete and rare usages, is: " Verb 3. transitive. To give notice of (something); to make generally known. 4. a. transitive. To make generally known by means of an announcement in a public medium; spec. (a) to publish information about (a person (now rare), thing, circumstance, or event) so as to attract public attention; (b) to describe or present (a product, service, or the like) in order to promote sales. Frequently with by, in, on the medium specified (as a journal, radio, television, etc.). (Now the most common sense.) b. intransitive. To publicize or promote something in this way. Noun 2. a. The action or process of advertise v. 4; publication of an announcement in a public medium; (concrete) the result of this; advertisements collectively. Cf. self-advertising n. at self- prefix 1b(b). b. The activity, trade, occupation, or profession of advertising or producing advertisements, now typically for a commercial product or service. "
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      I would argue that just because something fits into the definition doesn't mean the thing is what the definition claims it is. When Plato gave the definition of man as "featherless bipeds", Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man"
- erichocean 3y ago
  I would limit advertising restrictions to (1) paid (2) indirect (3) commercial speech: any speech where you explicitly compensate a 3rd party to either include (alongside their own speech) or produce (i.e. to launder as their own speech—see homemade NordVPN adverts in YouTube videos, and essentially all "influencers" on IG) in order to affect commercial activity. As a first party, you could of course be paid to produce any speech you want by the recipients of that speech (e.g. people can buy a book you write yourself, join your YouTube channel, etc.). You can also promote your own commercial activity (e.g. "buy my t-shirts" is allowed because it is direct). Practically speaking, this would mean that, e.g. Procter and Gamble could promote Tide on their own website, but they couldn't pay anyone else to promote it. An individual could make a video about how much they love Tide, but PG couldn't pay them to make that video (or give them free product, discounts, etc. to induce them to make that video). Businesses wouldn't be able to pay people to review products, or leave reviews on Amazon, etc. Things PG could do: go around the country giving free laundry courses where they show people how to use Tide in the best way, while simultaneously extolling the virtues of using Tide vs. its competitors (buy they would not be able to advertise these events, of course, instead relying on word of mouth and their own website). IMO, limiting advertising (as defined above) would dramatically improve the signal-to-noice ratio of the speech in the world, without limiting anyone's fundamental rights. If anything, it's normalizes the reach of everyone which enhances the positive benefits of free speech.

Galaxy brain: ban advertising everywhere, in all forms.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

That seems like a slippery slope, as technically every comment on HN is advertising on behalf of the account owner.

BizarroLand 3y ago
Can you go a little further into this? I want to know how you equate normal conversation to advertisement, because to me that seems like the linguistics version of moral relativism.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  The dictionary definition of advertising, according to the OED excluding obsolete and rare usages, is: " Verb 3. transitive. To give notice of (something); to make generally known. 4. a. transitive. To make generally known by means of an announcement in a public medium; spec. (a) to publish information about (a person (now rare), thing, circumstance, or event) so as to attract public attention; (b) to describe or present (a product, service, or the like) in order to promote sales. Frequently with by, in, on the medium specified (as a journal, radio, television, etc.). (Now the most common sense.) b. intransitive. To publicize or promote something in this way. Noun 2. a. The action or process of advertise v. 4; publication of an announcement in a public medium; (concrete) the result of this; advertisements collectively. Cf. self-advertising n. at self- prefix 1b(b). b. The activity, trade, occupation, or profession of advertising or producing advertisements, now typically for a commercial product or service. "
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    I would argue that just because something fits into the definition doesn't mean the thing is what the definition claims it is. When Plato gave the definition of man as "featherless bipeds", Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man"
erichocean 3y ago
I would limit advertising restrictions to (1) paid (2) indirect (3) commercial speech: any speech where you explicitly compensate a 3rd party to either include (alongside their own speech) or produce (i.e. to launder as their own speech—see homemade NordVPN adverts in YouTube videos, and essentially all "influencers" on IG) in order to affect commercial activity. As a first party, you could of course be paid to produce any speech you want by the recipients of that speech (e.g. people can buy a book you write yourself, join your YouTube channel, etc.). You can also promote your own commercial activity (e.g. "buy my t-shirts" is allowed because it is direct). Practically speaking, this would mean that, e.g. Procter and Gamble could promote Tide on their own website, but they couldn't pay anyone else to promote it. An individual could make a video about how much they love Tide, but PG couldn't pay them to make that video (or give them free product, discounts, etc. to induce them to make that video). Businesses wouldn't be able to pay people to review products, or leave reviews on Amazon, etc. Things PG could do: go around the country giving free laundry courses where they show people how to use Tide in the best way, while simultaneously extolling the virtues of using Tide vs. its competitors (buy they would not be able to advertise these events, of course, instead relying on word of mouth and their own website). IMO, limiting advertising (as defined above) would dramatically improve the signal-to-noice ratio of the speech in the world, without limiting anyone's fundamental rights. If anything, it's normalizes the reach of everyone which enhances the positive benefits of free speech.