5 ms·

Communicate in what way? And at what point are you going to differentiate between "art" and "not art"? These are rhetorical questions, because their implementa

Communicate 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 ago
Corporations aren't people, they have no right to speech. You can go ahead with a career in Warhol simulacras if you want.
- keiferski 2y ago
  According 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      So 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 ago
        No, 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
        The discussion is about eliminating ads entirely, as a concept, not restricting bad ones. Bad or deliberately misleading/lying ones already largely get punished. So I'm not sure what the issue is?
        cess11 2y ago
        If you can stop some ads now, then you could stop all ads through the same mechanisms, no need for 'full government control over media' or whatever. I thought that was a rather clear argument in what I wrote but apparently I was mistaken.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > If 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. This seems odd. A corporation in this sense is a group of people deciding what to do. Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?
      - danaris 2y ago
        A corporation is a group of people with very specific legal ramifications. If you're going to claim it's "the people making up the corporation" deciding what to do or say, then why can't I sue[0] the individuals who make up the corporation if I think that what they do or say is harmful to society? And conversely, if the group of people thinks that what they're doing and saying is so valuable and normal, why are they forming a corporation to do it, rather than just working together as independent citizens to do it? Because a corporation has a specific legal meaning, and that meaning does not, in any way, fundamentally include "being a legal person", regardless of what Supreme Court justices with obvious glaring holes in their ethics have said. [0] And expect not to get thrown out immediately because of limited liability. Yes, pedantically, I know you can sue for basically anything; that's clearly not the point here.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        I think because you're separate people it's hard to know quite what to reply to, but I don't really understand the idea that a corporation should not be allowed to speak. I'm not speaking specifically about the US, so I don't have particular large biases for or against Supreme Court decisions. I'm more talking practically - what does it mean for a corporation to be silent? A corporation is already held to a higher standard than an individual; e.g. it can be sued for false advertising for anything it says. Given that, shouldn't corporations be able to "speak" (or rather the people in the corporation speak or instruct people to make videos/billboards etc)?
        2y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Does the YouTuber who’d like to tell you about today’s sponsor have a right to speech?
  - cess11 2y ago
    Sure. Corporations shouldn't have a right to exploit them for deceitful promotion of their products, however.

cess11 2y ago

Corporations aren't people, they have no right to speech. You can go ahead with a career in Warhol simulacras if you want.

keiferski 2y ago
According 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      No, 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
        The discussion is about eliminating ads entirely, as a concept, not restricting bad ones. Bad or deliberately misleading/lying ones already largely get punished. So I'm not sure what the issue is?
        cess11 2y ago
        If you can stop some ads now, then you could stop all ads through the same mechanisms, no need for 'full government control over media' or whatever. I thought that was a rather clear argument in what I wrote but apparently I was mistaken.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > If 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. This seems odd. A corporation in this sense is a group of people deciding what to do. Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?
    - danaris 2y ago
      A corporation is a group of people with very specific legal ramifications. If you're going to claim it's "the people making up the corporation" deciding what to do or say, then why can't I sue[0] the individuals who make up the corporation if I think that what they do or say is harmful to society? And conversely, if the group of people thinks that what they're doing and saying is so valuable and normal, why are they forming a corporation to do it, rather than just working together as independent citizens to do it? Because a corporation has a specific legal meaning, and that meaning does not, in any way, fundamentally include "being a legal person", regardless of what Supreme Court justices with obvious glaring holes in their ethics have said. [0] And expect not to get thrown out immediately because of limited liability. Yes, pedantically, I know you can sue for basically anything; that's clearly not the point here.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        I think because you're separate people it's hard to know quite what to reply to, but I don't really understand the idea that a corporation should not be allowed to speak. I'm not speaking specifically about the US, so I don't have particular large biases for or against Supreme Court decisions. I'm more talking practically - what does it mean for a corporation to be silent? A corporation is already held to a higher standard than an individual; e.g. it can be sued for false advertising for anything it says. Given that, shouldn't corporations be able to "speak" (or rather the people in the corporation speak or instruct people to make videos/billboards etc)?
        2y ago
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
Does the YouTuber who’d like to tell you about today’s sponsor have a right to speech?
- cess11 2y ago
  Sure. Corporations shouldn't have a right to exploit them for deceitful promotion of their products, however.