3 ms·

Prison for shills. And rewards for whistleblowing on illegal ads, garnished from the companies that paid for them. The same incentive mechanism that makes tax e

Prison for shills. And rewards for whistleblowing on illegal ads, garnished from the companies that paid for them. The same incentive mechanism that makes tax enforcement effective [0]. Fundamentally, ad markets can't hide from enforcement, so long as whoever's buying the ads is a commercial entity interacting with the financial system. Which it usually is: the primary reason to buy ads is to boost sales of something that's being sold on the open marketspace, overtly and conspicuously. (If it's being advertised, it must be conspicuous, right?) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Whistleblower_Office?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Whistleblower_Office?usesk... [late edit]: In short—if society wants to ban ads, that's a thing that's enforceable and difficult to evade.

echelon 3y ago
> Prison for shills. And rewards for whistleblowing on illegal ads, garnished from the companies that paid for them. I don't like advertising, but this sounds awful. What counts as "advertising"? Why can't groups of people climb up an attention gradient and build things? Lots of useful things could not exist without advertising.
- perihelions 3y ago
  I'm replying to the comment asking about "masqueraded ads", i.e. shills. I'm not putting forward an opinion about what should or shouldn't be lawful, but opining that, should society choose to outlaw (a subset of?) ads, that's certainly an enforceable law. - "Why can't groups of people climb up an attention gradient and build things?" Why should the attention gradient be an auction market?
rightbyte 3y ago
Ye well I just don't want to risk jail for shilling for Ben and Jerries (the supreme ice cream for any occasion where you don't have guests, since it is so expansive). How would you enforce laws against shills? Doesn't many influencer work for free samples etc? I am way more worried for misuse of such laws than shills in the first place. I'd rather people just don't trust celebrities for consumer advice.
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "Doesn't many influencer work for free samples etc?" By the letter of the law, that's a form of remuneration, and is mandatory to disclose. - "A “material connection” to the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or a financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you free or discounted products or services." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-... ("Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers")
- HWR_14 3y ago
  In the US influencers are legally required to disclose that they got free samples or remuneration for their reviews. Specifically in the body of whatever message or video contains the review.

echelon 3y ago

> Prison for shills. And rewards for whistleblowing on illegal ads, garnished from the companies that paid for them. I don't like advertising, but this sounds awful. What counts as "advertising"? Why can't groups of people climb up an attention gradient and build things? Lots of useful things could not exist without advertising.

perihelions 3y ago
I'm replying to the comment asking about "masqueraded ads", i.e. shills. I'm not putting forward an opinion about what should or shouldn't be lawful, but opining that, should society choose to outlaw (a subset of?) ads, that's certainly an enforceable law. - "Why can't groups of people climb up an attention gradient and build things?" Why should the attention gradient be an auction market?

rightbyte 3y ago

Ye well I just don't want to risk jail for shilling for Ben and Jerries (the supreme ice cream for any occasion where you don't have guests, since it is so expansive). How would you enforce laws against shills? Doesn't many influencer work for free samples etc? I am way more worried for misuse of such laws than shills in the first place. I'd rather people just don't trust celebrities for consumer advice.

perihelions 3y ago
- "Doesn't many influencer work for free samples etc?" By the letter of the law, that's a form of remuneration, and is mandatory to disclose. - "A “material connection” to the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or a financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you free or discounted products or services." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-... ("Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers")
HWR_14 3y ago
In the US influencers are legally required to disclose that they got free samples or remuneration for their reviews. Specifically in the body of whatever message or video contains the review.