3 ms·
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. T
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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.