5 ms·

One would never reach zero. And it would be challenging both to define and police laws against advertising. But to get to a world with drastically less advertis

One would never reach zero. And it would be challenging both to define and police laws against advertising. But to get to a world with drastically less advertisements than today seems doable.

scarface_74 2y ago
So we want the government to decide what is advertising and propaganda? Is telling people about the wrongs of government propaganda? Is going door to door about have you made Jesus the head of your life propaganda?
- jychang 2y ago
  Yeah? The government defines what is murder, defines what is tax evasion, and defines tons of other stuff already? Some states already have laws against billboards?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    How would you like the government deciding some cause they didn’t agree with is advertising? If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion? And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites? I can give you a real world example. Florida requires age verification for porn sites. Sites not based in the US including the ones owned by MindGeek just ignored it.
    - amelius 2y ago
      We can start by banning ads for products and services that cost money. > And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites? We just address the big platforms. No need to be exhaustive in the first attempt.
      - JustExAWS 2y ago
        So you put American companies at a disadvantage and that means companies could just advertise on foreign websites. Are you going to block those websites? Again we see it happening today, the American porn websites are losing money to foreign websites owned by MindGeek. Why wouldn’t the same happen to more mainstream sites. Do we also ban Netflix and other streaming services from having an ad tier? Do we make all search engines and other content providers for pay? How do broadcast companies make money without advertising? Do we want the government funding and controlling content?
        jychang 2y ago
        American websites implement GDPR even though that's an EU law. Websites that are used across geopolitical boundaries will invariably follow US law. There will certainly be a few exceptions, but if the law is written like the GDPR, then they'd be illegally violating the law. And services like Netflix losing an ad supported tier is just like... Netflix in 2021. I fail to see that as alarming.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        And how does broadcast Tv work in your no ad supported TV world? Would everyone have to pay for Google for search? Could you not get any news if you couldn’t pay for it? Websites that do not have any European presence could care less about EU law. I just gave a real world example of what’s going on in the US right now. Florida has a law that says porn sites must have age verification. Xvideos completely ignores the law. But back to Google, if it weren’t ad supported, does that mean minors couldn’t use it or the poor? Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government. Would people he don’t have home internet access who can now go to the library not use Google if they don’t pay for it?
        jychang 2y ago
        How old are you? Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by "viewers like you"? And historically TV advertising was banned until the FCC allowed it. And you do realize that news used to be paid? You'd be surprised that... people used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy. Really, you're trying to imply that society wouldn't function without advertising- when it was the default until the last 100 years or so. Perhaps you should watch Mad Men on HBO, which depicts the 1960s era when sociopaths of the advertising industry decided to redefine advertising as a necessity of modern living. > Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government. If the government is willing to subsidize Google Android phones running on a network like AT&T or T-Mobile for poor people... what's to stop the government from also subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well? It's not like Google's gonna care much about poor people, people who are that poor tend not to be good advertising targets anyways. The juicy ad market is elsewhere. Similarly, have you gone to any library recently? Libraries already offer stuff like access to a NYTimes or WSJ subscription, or even things like LinkedIn Learning. Adding Google to the list as another subscription that they offer to library card holders for free is a nonissue. Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed into being unable to visualize a society without advertising. Frankly, nobody gives a shit if EU or whatever websites continue to do their thing. US porn sites have negative political capital anyways, XVideos continuing operate as before impacting the US porn industry would make any hypothetical law EASIER to pass, not more difficult.
    - idle_zealot 2y ago
      > If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion? A nonsensical argument. You might as well ask how "Oh yeah, you want to ban murder? Well how would you like it if conservative states say that abortion is murder, and killing negroes isn't? Clearly outlawing murder is unworkable." Great job pointing out that laws can be misinterpreted by motivated judges, I guess we should get rid of all the laws then to make sure that doesn't happen.
      - JustExAWS 2y ago
        Whether I commit murder is objective. Speech is always subjective. Even if abortion is murder is objective based on the state laws. We see right now how government controlling speech that it doesn’t like is harmful. Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily seeing the current abuses of power and how it is used to punish people the government doesn’t like. We should limit the power of the government to only punishing things that infringe on our rights and our person.
        Duwensatzaj 2y ago
        > Whether I commit murder is objective. Homicide is objective. Murder is unlawful homicide and therefore subjective.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        brookst 2y ago
        Even the line between homicide and manslaughter is subjective.
        Supermancho 2y ago
        > Whether I commit murder is objective. There are many different ways humans can die and many different types of human involvement in sequence of events. This involvement is sometimes characterized as a causal contributor to death. Responsibility in a related death, is not objective. You are simply incorrect.
- appreciatorBus 2y ago
  The point is that advertising and propaganda are indistinguishable. Going door-to-door to talk about Jesus is the same as going door-to-door to talk about vacuums, but neither is anything like roadside billboards or programmatic advertising. We can ditch the billboards and the programmatic advertising and get a better world, even if some advertisers and propagandists still go door-to-door. At least when it’s door-to-door the advertiser/propagandist has to really work for it, and you have the option of just not opening the door.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    So it’s just “programmatic advertising” that should be banned and not self hosted advertising by an internal sales team?
    - bediger4000 2y ago
      No, that should be banned as well.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      If I have to seek it out, say a product catalog or a website, it really isn't marketing or advertising. The "problem" is that everything is vying for our attention because the internet made it vastly cheaper for any random joe blow to force a set of pixels in front of our faces. That's the distinction. If I can't ignore it, then it shouldn't be legal. Companies should have no right to my attention.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        You can ignore it - it’s called an ad blocker.
  - anjel 2y ago
    Something like the dearly departed Equal Time Doctrine, but more expansive across all politocal comms might be a sufficient detergent.

One would never reach zero. And it would be challenging both to define and police laws against advertising. But to get to a world with drastically less advertisements than today seems doable.

scarface_74 2y ago

So we want the government to decide what is advertising and propaganda? Is telling people about the wrongs of government propaganda? Is going door to door about have you made Jesus the head of your life propaganda?

jychang 2y ago
Yeah? The government defines what is murder, defines what is tax evasion, and defines tons of other stuff already? Some states already have laws against billboards?
- scarface_74 2y ago
  How would you like the government deciding some cause they didn’t agree with is advertising? If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion? And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites? I can give you a real world example. Florida requires age verification for porn sites. Sites not based in the US including the ones owned by MindGeek just ignored it.
  - amelius 2y ago
    We can start by banning ads for products and services that cost money. > And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites? We just address the big platforms. No need to be exhaustive in the first attempt.
    - JustExAWS 2y ago
      So you put American companies at a disadvantage and that means companies could just advertise on foreign websites. Are you going to block those websites? Again we see it happening today, the American porn websites are losing money to foreign websites owned by MindGeek. Why wouldn’t the same happen to more mainstream sites. Do we also ban Netflix and other streaming services from having an ad tier? Do we make all search engines and other content providers for pay? How do broadcast companies make money without advertising? Do we want the government funding and controlling content?
      - jychang 2y ago
        American websites implement GDPR even though that's an EU law. Websites that are used across geopolitical boundaries will invariably follow US law. There will certainly be a few exceptions, but if the law is written like the GDPR, then they'd be illegally violating the law. And services like Netflix losing an ad supported tier is just like... Netflix in 2021. I fail to see that as alarming.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        And how does broadcast Tv work in your no ad supported TV world? Would everyone have to pay for Google for search? Could you not get any news if you couldn’t pay for it? Websites that do not have any European presence could care less about EU law. I just gave a real world example of what’s going on in the US right now. Florida has a law that says porn sites must have age verification. Xvideos completely ignores the law. But back to Google, if it weren’t ad supported, does that mean minors couldn’t use it or the poor? Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government. Would people he don’t have home internet access who can now go to the library not use Google if they don’t pay for it?
        jychang 2y ago
        How old are you? Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by "viewers like you"? And historically TV advertising was banned until the FCC allowed it. And you do realize that news used to be paid? You'd be surprised that... people used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy. Really, you're trying to imply that society wouldn't function without advertising- when it was the default until the last 100 years or so. Perhaps you should watch Mad Men on HBO, which depicts the 1960s era when sociopaths of the advertising industry decided to redefine advertising as a necessity of modern living. > Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government. If the government is willing to subsidize Google Android phones running on a network like AT&T or T-Mobile for poor people... what's to stop the government from also subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well? It's not like Google's gonna care much about poor people, people who are that poor tend not to be good advertising targets anyways. The juicy ad market is elsewhere. Similarly, have you gone to any library recently? Libraries already offer stuff like access to a NYTimes or WSJ subscription, or even things like LinkedIn Learning. Adding Google to the list as another subscription that they offer to library card holders for free is a nonissue. Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed into being unable to visualize a society without advertising. Frankly, nobody gives a shit if EU or whatever websites continue to do their thing. US porn sites have negative political capital anyways, XVideos continuing operate as before impacting the US porn industry would make any hypothetical law EASIER to pass, not more difficult.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    > If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion? A nonsensical argument. You might as well ask how "Oh yeah, you want to ban murder? Well how would you like it if conservative states say that abortion is murder, and killing negroes isn't? Clearly outlawing murder is unworkable." Great job pointing out that laws can be misinterpreted by motivated judges, I guess we should get rid of all the laws then to make sure that doesn't happen.
    - JustExAWS 2y ago
      Whether I commit murder is objective. Speech is always subjective. Even if abortion is murder is objective based on the state laws. We see right now how government controlling speech that it doesn’t like is harmful. Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily seeing the current abuses of power and how it is used to punish people the government doesn’t like. We should limit the power of the government to only punishing things that infringe on our rights and our person.
      - Duwensatzaj 2y ago
        > Whether I commit murder is objective. Homicide is objective. Murder is unlawful homicide and therefore subjective.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        brookst 2y ago
        Even the line between homicide and manslaughter is subjective.
      - Supermancho 2y ago
        > Whether I commit murder is objective. There are many different ways humans can die and many different types of human involvement in sequence of events. This involvement is sometimes characterized as a causal contributor to death. Responsibility in a related death, is not objective. You are simply incorrect.
appreciatorBus 2y ago
The point is that advertising and propaganda are indistinguishable. Going door-to-door to talk about Jesus is the same as going door-to-door to talk about vacuums, but neither is anything like roadside billboards or programmatic advertising. We can ditch the billboards and the programmatic advertising and get a better world, even if some advertisers and propagandists still go door-to-door. At least when it’s door-to-door the advertiser/propagandist has to really work for it, and you have the option of just not opening the door.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface_74 2y ago
  So it’s just “programmatic advertising” that should be banned and not self hosted advertising by an internal sales team?
  - bediger4000 2y ago
    No, that should be banned as well.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    If I have to seek it out, say a product catalog or a website, it really isn't marketing or advertising. The "problem" is that everything is vying for our attention because the internet made it vastly cheaper for any random joe blow to force a set of pixels in front of our faces. That's the distinction. If I can't ignore it, then it shouldn't be legal. Companies should have no right to my attention.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      You can ignore it - it’s called an ad blocker.
- anjel 2y ago
  Something like the dearly departed Equal Time Doctrine, but more expansive across all politocal comms might be a sufficient detergent.