3 ms·
In a world of finite attention, some form of advertising will inevitable appear. Unless your critique of advertising includes a solution to the attention proble
by keiferski 2y ago
In a world of finite attention, some form of advertising will inevitable appear. Unless your critique of advertising includes a solution to the attention problem, it's not useful.
Then you might say, well there should be some regulations that prevent advertisers from doing X bad thing or saying Y exaggerated statement. Most of these exist already, and if they don't, the legislation required to ban such practices would be easier to implement than legislation "banning advertising" writ large, whatever that actually means in practice.
- cess11 2y agoJust like you can demand that corporations provide correct product information on the packaging, you can easily demand that they only communicate in that way around their products. The difference between advertising and product information is that the former is deceitful.
- keiferski 2y agoCommunicate in what way? And at what point are you going to differentiate between "art" and "not art"? These are rhetorical questions, because their implementation is a pipe dream. Getting rid of "advertising" would require the most draconian anti-speech laws imaginable.
- cess11 2y agoCorporations aren't people, they have no right to speech. You can go ahead with a career in Warhol simulacras if you want.
- keiferski 2y agoAccording to the Supreme Court, they do. Regardless, this isn't really an answer. What metrics are you using to determine if an ad is misleading? Take for example the early 2000s BMW ads which were short films with various celebrities and actors. Are these "misleading" and not allowed? Again, these aren't even remotely implementable ideas without complete state control over the media.
- cess11 2y agoIf you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world. Why not in the same way it's determined for product information on the packaging? No, it just requires the state to have control over corporations, which it has, since it's the one creating them.
- keiferski 2y agoSo your solution is to have the government control all communications coming from corporations? This is again, extremely draconian. Corporations aren't fictions, they are organizations of people and resources...just like the government. You also didn't answer my question: where is the line between art and advertising drawn? If I make a movie and use BMWs in it, and BMW gives me those cars for free to use, am I breaking the advertising law? As I said in the initial comment, all of these proposed solutions are absolute nonsense. If you dislike advertising's effect on the world, come up with a better way to manage the attention problem. Government control of the media isn't one of them.
- cess11 2y agoNo, that's something you dreamt up for no good reason. There are a lot of constraints on corporate communication, especially for publicly traded corporations. This does not mean "the government control[s] all communications coming from corporations". It's common all over the world to regulate content in advertising. In many places corporations manage to self-regulate, in some the state steps in instead. Ads aimed at kids being prohibited is an obvious example, ads for gambling being heavily regulated another. That's not an ad in the sense I've discussed, but yeah, if you ask me you should pay for the cars. You're inventing consequences for restricting ads that are quite unnecessary so I'm not so sure I'm the one with a nonsense problem.
- keiferski 2y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoDoes the YouTuber who’d like to tell you about today’s sponsor have a right to speech?
- cess11 2y agoSure. Corporations shouldn't have a right to exploit them for deceitful promotion of their products, however.