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

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.