5 ms·

So your solution is to have the government control all communications coming from corporations? This is again, extremely draconian. Corporations aren't fiction

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.

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.