6 ms·

One reason why the definition is more important when it comes to outlawing behavior is that when you get it wrong you are actually preventing people from doing

One reason why the definition is more important when it comes to outlawing behavior is that when you get it wrong you are actually preventing people from doing something that is important and valuable to them. Ironically this is something lawyers and judges would pick up on immediately. You need an underlying principle of harm that can be applied consistently.

cratermoon 2y ago
> you are actually preventing people from doing something that is important and valuable to them. There are many things individuals will consider "important and valuable to them" that are harmful to others. We prevent individuals from harming others for their own self-gain because that's what societies do.
- bccdee 2y ago
  This is an argument against people having rights at all. "Oh, you think you're entitled to X? Well, in certain scenarios, X might cause harm. You might use free speech to advocate for something bad, or leverage your immunity to unjust search & seizure to conceal evidence of a crime." Consider that the author considers propaganda to be a form of advertising, and suggests we ban propaganda. Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. This anti-propaganda law effectively would have to make it illegal to publish political opinion pieces. That would be absurdly draconian. For the record, I'm strongly anti-advertising, but a complete ban on advertisement would be impossible to construct because you can't draw a sharp line between ads and free expression.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. Actually (and hilariously) Fox News according to their own court filings do not publish news, they are an entertainment product. And I say ironically because that's exactly the mechanism people are clamoring for in this discussion: it's the courts. Lawyers argue and courts eventually decide definitions all the time, because it's highly impractical to belabor and endlessly debate passing new laws because we don't have ironclad definitions in them beforehand. If you want my humble opinion, in a legal/ban sense, I would define advertising as: > Communicative material that is placed strategically by publishers or media for a price/by way of other agreement to drive awareness of products or services with the intent to generate attention and sales of said products or services.
    - whacko_quacko 2y ago
      Kudos for providing a somewhat sensible definition. This helps by addressing the free speech issues (at least to an extent^[1]), but I think there are other problems as well. The economical fallout would be extensive. Google's and Meta's business model (and that of many others) would basically disappear overnight. While I'm not a fan of either, and think there should be much stricter regulation for (very large) tech-companies, this would make financing of a lot of important products infeasible. But not just in tech. Think about product placement in movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money? Also, it would make entering markets much harder, if you're not a household name already. If I read your definition correctly, you couldn't even give a complimentary account for your SaaS product to a reviewer ("by way of other agreement") to enable them to test your software (and hopefully write favorably about it if they're convinced). This would definitely hurt consumers. I think you should be allowed to try to change minds. If anything, we should outlaw the massive tracking effort involved in advertising. [1]: What about a political party publishing a newspaper and paying their staff? Is that okay? I could construct more examples, and life is even messier. On the other hand, I have to admit, that the focus on the payment aspect makes this much more palatable to me.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > The economical fallout would be extensive. There was likely economic fallout many would call extensive when we mandated equal wages for minorities and an end to child labor, and yet businesses soldier on. Turns out, if you’re selling products people need, momentary disruptions and changing market conditions generally don’t mean you suddenly cannot conduct business. > Think about product placement in movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money? One of sport fans biggest complaints is the overwhelming number of ads and the overbearing, bloated organizations behind pro tier sports. It seems like bankrupting a lot of them and letting teams return to public goods funded by municipalities would be a huge step forward into preserving sports as a social event, not a profit seeking venture. And it’s not like pro sports aren’t already benefitting from taxpayers left and right. We could just get rid of the money men up top and let things settle where they may. Sure we may not get blockbuster sports events anymore, but maybe more people could then afford to actually attend? > This would definitely hurt consumers. Consumers LOATHE SaaS. They would cheer for it to be killed off. > What about a political party publishing a newspaper and paying their staff? I don’t see how that would run afoul of my definition?
  - foobarchu 2y ago
    > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. That's not advertising by any standard, unless they're being paid by someone to do it (whether they currently are or not is irrelevant). Just because someone can benefit doesn't make it advertising/propaganda, it's about the whether the funding comes from someone who benefits from the particular content. As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them.
    - caseysoftware 2y ago
      > As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them. Did the pay full retail price for the product or get a discount? Did they get the product at release or in advance? Did they get access to detailed specs or the people who built it? Did they give feedback that went into the product? Did they get a company/lab/event visit and some swag? Did they get preferential access for the next product? "Sponsoring" is just the most visible, clearly disclosed way to advertise in those. But fundamentally, getting and preserving access is immensely valuable and there may not be funds moving between the two groups. None of us are completely unbiased. Getting those things disclosed would be a great improvement.
  - SergeAx 2y ago
    Advertisement is when the ad carrier receive money, goods, services, preference or other monetary equivalent. With this definition we may give a break to free expression of views.
- grandempire 2y ago
  This is just benevolent authoritarianism (the most common form of government worldwide and historically).
camgunz 2y ago
This law is no different than any other prohibition. It's not like we have to go back to the legal lab to figure out precisely what advertising is because, unlike things with clear definitions everyone knows like fraud, discrimination, or defamation, advertising is particularly nebulous.
- grandempire 2y ago
  Did you see which comment this is in reply to? It’s about your general description of people in tech to be hesitant and skeptical when it comes to banning things.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    I'm confused by your comment, the posts are both mine? Even if I take what I think is the most charitable version of your "argument", which I think is "tech thinks things should by default exist and be permissible unless they pass an extremely stringent test", no pro-advertising person here is trying to find the outlines of what that test might be. They're all running right to "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech without collapsing civilization", which is absurd.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      > "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is You are describing the ability of good engineers to deal with vague and ill defined problems. > "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X anyway.. Your assumption is that the challenge or concern about regulation is the difficulty of dealing with vagueness. As I pointed out, this is not the case, but the hesitancy and destructive power of imposing your will on others. > It's so transparent to me now Hope I cleared up the confusion. > "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech without collapsing civilization" I am not - and did not make the claim. I am explaining why you are seeing engineers care more about vagueness in one context than another. I think a judge would also demand a consistent principle and definition to guide regulation.

cratermoon 2y ago

> you are actually preventing people from doing something that is important and valuable to them. There are many things individuals will consider "important and valuable to them" that are harmful to others. We prevent individuals from harming others for their own self-gain because that's what societies do.

bccdee 2y ago
This is an argument against people having rights at all. "Oh, you think you're entitled to X? Well, in certain scenarios, X might cause harm. You might use free speech to advocate for something bad, or leverage your immunity to unjust search & seizure to conceal evidence of a crime." Consider that the author considers propaganda to be a form of advertising, and suggests we ban propaganda. Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. This anti-propaganda law effectively would have to make it illegal to publish political opinion pieces. That would be absurdly draconian. For the record, I'm strongly anti-advertising, but a complete ban on advertisement would be impossible to construct because you can't draw a sharp line between ads and free expression.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. Actually (and hilariously) Fox News according to their own court filings do not publish news, they are an entertainment product. And I say ironically because that's exactly the mechanism people are clamoring for in this discussion: it's the courts. Lawyers argue and courts eventually decide definitions all the time, because it's highly impractical to belabor and endlessly debate passing new laws because we don't have ironclad definitions in them beforehand. If you want my humble opinion, in a legal/ban sense, I would define advertising as: > Communicative material that is placed strategically by publishers or media for a price/by way of other agreement to drive awareness of products or services with the intent to generate attention and sales of said products or services.
  - whacko_quacko 2y ago
    Kudos for providing a somewhat sensible definition. This helps by addressing the free speech issues (at least to an extent^[1]), but I think there are other problems as well. The economical fallout would be extensive. Google's and Meta's business model (and that of many others) would basically disappear overnight. While I'm not a fan of either, and think there should be much stricter regulation for (very large) tech-companies, this would make financing of a lot of important products infeasible. But not just in tech. Think about product placement in movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money? Also, it would make entering markets much harder, if you're not a household name already. If I read your definition correctly, you couldn't even give a complimentary account for your SaaS product to a reviewer ("by way of other agreement") to enable them to test your software (and hopefully write favorably about it if they're convinced). This would definitely hurt consumers. I think you should be allowed to try to change minds. If anything, we should outlaw the massive tracking effort involved in advertising. [1]: What about a political party publishing a newspaper and paying their staff? Is that okay? I could construct more examples, and life is even messier. On the other hand, I have to admit, that the focus on the payment aspect makes this much more palatable to me.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      > The economical fallout would be extensive. There was likely economic fallout many would call extensive when we mandated equal wages for minorities and an end to child labor, and yet businesses soldier on. Turns out, if you’re selling products people need, momentary disruptions and changing market conditions generally don’t mean you suddenly cannot conduct business. > Think about product placement in movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money? One of sport fans biggest complaints is the overwhelming number of ads and the overbearing, bloated organizations behind pro tier sports. It seems like bankrupting a lot of them and letting teams return to public goods funded by municipalities would be a huge step forward into preserving sports as a social event, not a profit seeking venture. And it’s not like pro sports aren’t already benefitting from taxpayers left and right. We could just get rid of the money men up top and let things settle where they may. Sure we may not get blockbuster sports events anymore, but maybe more people could then afford to actually attend? > This would definitely hurt consumers. Consumers LOATHE SaaS. They would cheer for it to be killed off. > What about a political party publishing a newspaper and paying their staff? I don’t see how that would run afoul of my definition?
- foobarchu 2y ago
  > Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. That's not advertising by any standard, unless they're being paid by someone to do it (whether they currently are or not is irrelevant). Just because someone can benefit doesn't make it advertising/propaganda, it's about the whether the funding comes from someone who benefits from the particular content. As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them.
  - caseysoftware 2y ago
    > As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them. Did the pay full retail price for the product or get a discount? Did they get the product at release or in advance? Did they get access to detailed specs or the people who built it? Did they give feedback that went into the product? Did they get a company/lab/event visit and some swag? Did they get preferential access for the next product? "Sponsoring" is just the most visible, clearly disclosed way to advertise in those. But fundamentally, getting and preserving access is immensely valuable and there may not be funds moving between the two groups. None of us are completely unbiased. Getting those things disclosed would be a great improvement.
- SergeAx 2y ago
  Advertisement is when the ad carrier receive money, goods, services, preference or other monetary equivalent. With this definition we may give a break to free expression of views.
grandempire 2y ago
This is just benevolent authoritarianism (the most common form of government worldwide and historically).

camgunz 2y ago

This law is no different than any other prohibition. It's not like we have to go back to the legal lab to figure out precisely what advertising is because, unlike things with clear definitions everyone knows like fraud, discrimination, or defamation, advertising is particularly nebulous.

grandempire 2y ago
Did you see which comment this is in reply to? It’s about your general description of people in tech to be hesitant and skeptical when it comes to banning things.
- camgunz 2y ago
  I'm confused by your comment, the posts are both mine? Even if I take what I think is the most charitable version of your "argument", which I think is "tech thinks things should by default exist and be permissible unless they pass an extremely stringent test", no pro-advertising person here is trying to find the outlines of what that test might be. They're all running right to "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech without collapsing civilization", which is absurd.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    > "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is You are describing the ability of good engineers to deal with vague and ill defined problems. > "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X anyway.. Your assumption is that the challenge or concern about regulation is the difficulty of dealing with vagueness. As I pointed out, this is not the case, but the hesitancy and destructive power of imposing your will on others. > It's so transparent to me now Hope I cleared up the confusion. > "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech without collapsing civilization" I am not - and did not make the claim. I am explaining why you are seeing engineers care more about vagueness in one context than another. I think a judge would also demand a consistent principle and definition to guide regulation.