8 ms·

Advertising is a parasitic force on society. It sucks up your attention with a willful intention to change your purchasing behaviour, often knowing that the new

• tptacek 2y ago
  Well, in between step 1 ("ban billboards") and step 3 ("ban advertisement") you'd need step 2 ("repeal the First Amendment of the United States Constitution").
  • gkoberger 2y ago
    They're banned in 4 US states already, with seemingly no infringement on the 1st Amendment. Legally speaking, the validity of banning billboards tends to be evaluated based on the Central Hudson test. More practically, there's numerous limitations to commercial speech... for example, you can't blare an audio ad from your rooftop.
    • tptacek 2y ago
      Billboards? Banning billboards is fine by me. Banning all advertising is unconstitutional.
      • whateveracct 2y ago
        Banning targeted advertising probably wouldn't be.
        • bee_rider 2y ago
          I’d rather ban the behavior required for targeting (building invasive dossiers on everyday normal people), than the (admittedly annoying) speech.
          • whateveracct 2y ago
            That's probably about what it'd look like. Some combination of things that make it impossible to profitably advertise the way companies do today.
  • paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Commercial speech has limits, even as the first amendment is interpreted today. Well, for now at least.
  • nobody9999 2y ago
    >Well, in between step 1 ("ban billboards") and step 3 ("ban advertisement") you'd need step 2 ("repeal the First Amendment of the United States Constitution"). Let me know how that goes! For most of US history, Commercial speech was not afforded full free speech rights. Nor does it currently enjoy them, although it is more protected than it used to be[0]: Commercial speech, as the Supreme Court iterated in Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)[1], had historically not been viewed as protected under the First Amendment. This category of expression, which includes commercial advertising, promises, and solicitations, had been subject to significant regulation to protect consumers and prevent fraud. Beginning in the 1970s, however, the Supreme Court gradually recognized this type of speech as deserving some First Amendment protection. As such, it wouldn't require repealing anything. Just reinterpreting how the First Amendment applies (or not) to commercial speech. And given the wholesale tossing out of precedent by recent SCOTUS personnel, it's certainly possible (albeit unlikely -- and more's the pity -- in this configuration) for them to do so. [0] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/commercial-speech/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/commercial-speech/ [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/valentine-v-chrestensen/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/valentine-v-chresten...
    • tptacek 2y ago
      I don't know what you mean by "full" free speech rights. But for the last 50 years, under the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts, pure commercial speech has been held to be protected by the First Amendment. The Burger court overturned Valentine.
      • kelnos 2y ago
        Right, but there is past (obsolete) precedent that suggests otherwise. If Valentine can be overturned, then the current way of thinking can also be changed.
        • tptacek 2y ago
          The opinion overturning Valentine noted that 30 years of jurisprudence since Valentine had arrived at a consensus that Valentine sure was pretty dumb. Not just Burger's court.
  • ceejayoz 2y ago
    Step three seemed to pass First Amendment muster for cigarette companies.
    • tptacek 2y ago
      Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. Regulations of commercial speech need to pass the "Central Hudson Test", which requires a compelling government interest (subject to heightened scrutiny) and narrowly-tailored regulation. Under this rubric, you can get cigarette ads off billboards, but you probably can't regulate Nike's ads.
      • kelnos 2y ago
        If SCOTUS can develop a test to determine when the government is allowed to violate 1A, then they can loosen that test's requirements. They won't, of course, but I don't see why they couldn't, if they wanted to.
      • ceejayoz 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • tptacek 2y ago
          Nobody is surprised that a Republican or Democratic nominee might have a strong take regarding Roe v Wade, because it's practically a litmus test for nomination. No nominee has ever been asked about Central Hudson v PSC NY. There's a reason for that. It's been 50 years and 3 different distinct courts and the only thing that seems to have happened with this body of case law is that protections for commercial speech have gotten stronger.
          • ceejayoz 2y ago
            > Nobody is surprised that a Republican or Democratic nominee might have a strong take regarding Roe v Wade, because it's practically a litmus test for nomination. The point is they'll openly say "settled law" and then immediately unsettle it. "Corporations get free speech" is a concept granted over time (and fairly recently) by the courts, not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. (Doubly so at the state level; it wasn't until the 1920s that SCOTUS even said the First Amendment applied to states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) > It's been 50 years… Right about the same amount of time Roe v. Wade stuck around. Look, this current Court certainly isn't gonna ban advertising; if anything, it's more likely to permit government-required advertisements right into our Neuralink headsets… but a future Court could easily say fast food advertising or social media for minors is just as bad as cigarette advertising was.
  • tedunangst 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Taek 2y ago
    So, I dug into this somewhat deeply, and it's true that there's some case law which would make an outright ban of commercial advertising difficult, however: The law is pretty consistent about the idea that any paid endorsement has to be "truthful". And as we've learned more about sociology and advertising, we've realized that things like paid endorsements are fundamentally not truthful, because they are misleading the public to believe that some figure or trusted source (even if only at a subconscious level - which is still enough to change consumer behavior!) is in favor of a product or brand. So maybe if you could argue that paid speech is inherently untruthful (which I believe that it is!), then you could make legal policy that bans paid speech complaint with the First Amendment! (caveat: I am not a lawyer, I am not a legal activist, etc)
    • tptacek 2y ago
      Read Va Pharmacy vs Va Citizens Consumer Council to get a sense for how well you're going to fare with "paid speech is inherently untruthful". It's addressed directly!
• kortilla 2y ago
  >intention to change your purchasing behaviour, often knowing that the new behavior is worse for you. I think the latter part of that is a huge jump. How is seeing a billboard for a plumber promoting bad behavior?
  • ceejayoz 2y ago
    They said "often", not "always". Even then, you've probably not picked the best plumber this way.
  • Teever 2y ago
    This is obviously an uncharitable interpretation of the comment that you're replying to. A better question would be how is seeing ads for sports betting in between periods of a game promoting bad behavior. And the answer to that is very obvious -- the legalization of online sports betting and the nonstop barrage of ads for it on tv and social media is bad for individuals and society as a whole.
  • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    The plumber could be lowering prices, or focusing on making his customers happy enough that they recommend to a friend. Instead that money/effort is going into a dimension that has nothing to do with good plumbering. That's bad behavior.
    • kortilla 2y ago
      This is out of touch with how businesses get going though. If you depend on word of mouth only as a plumber you’ll be out of business before you even get started. Are you suggesting to wait around the hardware parking lot to hope to hear about someone who needs a plumber?
      • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        I think that if we did not live in a world where our attention was under attack all the time, it would make sense to develop a P2P search protocol for this sort of thing. Could be standard community driven open source, could be a government sponsored project, could be a crypto thing, lots of options here... The plumber would dedicate a raspberry pi or yesteryear's phone with the bad battery or cracked screen, and they'd leave it plugged in in a closet somewhere and configure it to talk to a few peers who they know personally and who will vouch for their legitimacy. They of course would be vouching for others in the same way. Nodes would gossip about services that are available, so you could figure out which plumbers are nearby and which of your peers trust those plumbers. Since you're operating on a web of trust, you can find a mutually trusted third party to act as a mediator in the case of disputes, and if you have a good or bad experience you can also gossip that info to your peers so that they can aggregate a sort of review system. But unlike Amazon's, it's full of people that you know and explicitly trust, so it's much harder to game since there's no single source of truth to target/abuse. It would exchange the kind of information that traditionally comes via ads, but I think it would be so much more effective than ads because all parties want it to succeed--whereas ads have carved out a rather hostile landscape for this sort of thing.
• morsecodist 2y ago
  There are definitely a lot of problems with advertising and I am all for regulating them but this seems like such an extreme response. As someone who has worked for smaller organizations (both for profit and nonprofit) without some form of advertising people just would not hear about us at all.
  • Taek 2y ago
    If all advertising was banned, other institutions would set up to fill the vacuum. Imagine variations of Consumer Reports but that stretch across all sorts of industries. Essentially, to get the word out about your organization or product (whether for-profit or non-profit), you'd have to convince someone with an audience to feature you *without paying them to do it*. In other words, your organization or product or service has to be genuinely interesting on its own. And, since nobody else is allowed to pay for people's attention, you aren't competing with budgets, you are competing with other ideas. Imho this makes for a much more interesting information landscape.
    • lukan 2y ago
      "And, since nobody else is allowed to pay for people's attention, you aren't competing with budgets, you are competing with other ideas. Imho this makes for a much more interesting information landscape." Sounds nice in theory. "You want to like us on facebook and get a perk for free on your app? (No money involved)." "Hey you maybe want a job? We will give one to those who spread the word most about us" Devil is in the details. And humans have a lot of details. Otherwise I am all for starting to ban of advertisement, what is possible. But disruption should be expected. A lot. (I mean, most of the internet is financed by ads)
      • Taek 2y ago
        The law has pretty firm definitions for things like "in kind payments" and "consideration" - because these sorts of sneaky ways of rewarding people are also relevant to bribes! So we aren't treading into new uncharted territory where the details need to be figured out - humans have been playing this game for centuries and the law already has effective tools for navigating the tricky parts.
• whall6 2y ago
  What is an advertisement? Let’s see if we can define this before deciding on an all out ban.
  • Retr0id 2y ago
    paid advertisement is easier to define, I think. If entity A pays entity B to show/tell me something, that's an ad.
    • eru 2y ago
      So paid actors in movies are ads? They are paid for by the production company. Presumably we want to keep paid actors, but then the loop hole is that Procter & Gamble becomes a media production company. That's actually close to how things used to be eg in the US.
      • Retr0id 2y ago
        The actors in a movie aren't the ones delivering the content to me.
      • Taek 2y ago
        Procter & Gamble is welcome to become a media production company, but they can't push their media by paying for distribution - any paid distribution is advertising. Instead, distributors have to want to distribute the content because they think their audience will be interested in consuming it - a high bar to hit if the main purpose of your media is to push a product. Paid actors, and for example company representatives, do count as acting on behalf of the company and therefore don't count as paid advertising. But, whatever medium they are talking to has to be an unpaid medium. A company representative (or paid actor) talking about a product in an interview is okay if the interviewer / distributor is not being paid to host the interview. (or if the interviewer / distributor is the company itself - that's also allowed). Does that give massive companies an advantage? I would argue not really, because it creates massive overheads for pushing advertisement content, and since you aren't allowed to pay for distribution, it means that people have to be interesting in consuming your content of their own volition instead of other content that isn't trying to push products.
• _blk 2y ago
  Sounds like another problem that capitalism solves without unnecessary overregulation: just don't buy (overly) advertised goods.
  • callc 2y ago
    This sounds like sarcasm but I’ll assume the best interpretation. Why do you think unregulated capitalism will solve the advertising problem? Other than what I am guessing your point is to relying on a large portion to punish bad advertisers and that eventually those companies will do boring adverts. Clearly the average Joe/Jane is persuadable, and does not have an iron will to never be manipulated. Clearly unrestrained advertisement is how we got here in the first place.
  • welshwelsh 2y ago
    There is zero chance that capitalism will solve this problem. Even if you personally choose not to buy overly advertised goods, the overwhelming majority of people will not make the same choice. Advertising works extremely well, and it will always work no matter what you or I do. So we will still have the problem of excessive advertising, which negatively impacts even people who try to ignore that advertising.
• BurningFrog 2y ago
  I think this is deeply and fundamentally wrong. Advertising is how small and new companies can reach customers. It's how monopolies are broken. It's how progress reaches the masses. Yes, it is willfully intended to change people's behavior. So are many of our posts on HN. That is an important purpose for communication!
  • ranger_danger 2y ago
    The states that have banned billboards seem to get by just fine though.
  • rayiner 2y ago
    You probably don’t need advertising now that the internet exists and people can just research what they need.
  • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Advertising may have been necessary the way you're describing in the 1950's but it's now so much easier to move information around. As for all communication being a bit like advertising, a significant threshold has been crossed once you're paying to have your information elevated above that of your peers. If we didn't allow that, the noise floor would be lower, and it would be possible to achieve the benefits of advertising without the harms. For instance, suppose I'm looking for a plumber... there are only maybe fifteen within a reasonable distance. There's no need for the plumbers to pay some third party for the privilege of being first in the list. I can limit my search criteria so that the results are narrow enough that I can consider each one, and they can instead spend that money on pipes or toilets or whatever.
    • 28304283409234 2y ago
      And also, in communication there is respectful and disrespectful. Screaming in my face is communication. It is not respectful.
  • bentobean 2y ago
    You’re right. New plan: let’s ban all paid advertisements except for those that are approved by a committee of government officials. /s
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Let's ban billboards. And then let's follow that up with a general purpose ban on paid advertisement This sprint to the extreme is how one ensures we cannot ban billboards. (If I worked for a billboard company, I would try to frame a billboard ban as a ban on ads.)
• bentobean 2y ago
  Sure, and after that let’s ban: potato chips, sugar water, sex outside the hours of 6:00 - 7:00 PM, caffeine, plastic straws, and non-bran-based cereals. Yes, people need to take care of themselves, but part of that involves a degree of personal responsibility. “Let’s ban paid advertisement.” This is not a serious discussion.
  • nkrisc 2y ago
    And yet murder is illegal even if the victim walked into a dark alley alone.
    • sieabahlpark 2y ago
      [dead]
  • kelnos 2y ago
    I'm pretty serious about it. The world would be a much better place without advertising.
    • bentobean 2y ago
      I think it’s a nonstarter that conflicts with 1st amendment principles, but I don’t necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment that you’re expressing. Things like this are just the price we pay for living in a free / democratic society. But kudos to you for thinking outside the box.
  • saintfire 2y ago
    Ads are often involuntarily consumed. Even the most vigilant and self-aware person will fall prey to a multitude of advertising gimmicks. Marketing is basically just manipulating deep-rooted psychological factors. Marketers would even tell you as much, I'm sure. Choosing to eat potato chips and being bombarded by ads aren't anywhere near in the same ballpark.
• anonzzzies 2y ago
  For large companies, sure. Large companies abuse everything though; tax, regulatory, worker rights, human rights etc. I have no clue how to fix it in a capitalist winner takes all world, but that's the problem, not advertising. Small companies (few people) need advertising to get any reach normally.
• stana 2y ago
  Advertising is out of control. Doing mundane things like filling up fuel at a petrol stations, or catching a lift at work - there is a little screen targeting you with ads.
• pj_mukh 2y ago
  Let’s strike a deal. Let’s take the current city design boards and repurpose them so that instead of micromanaging stucco colors and setbacks they’re micromanaging visual advertising. Housing gets cheaper, visual advertising disappears.
• nodesocket 2y ago
  You may not like billboards, but they are a form of expression and free speech. Admittedly against banning them. Have y’all not learned anything from the last election? Cancel culture and stifling free speech is not a strategy.
• seaparter 2y ago
  I don't know, all the billboards I ever see are for restaurants, concerts, and ambulance chasers. Let's ban Meta and Google instead.
• cyberjerkXX 2y ago
  How about you stop advocating for using the coercive power of the state to ban harmless speech or things you simply dislike? If a property owner wants to allow billboards on their building, they have every right to do so.
  • BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > harmless It's not harmless, so your objection is irrelevant.
    • cyberjerkXX 2y ago
      It is harmless - you don't like the aesthetic so your scale of "harm" is irrelevant.
      • LocalH 2y ago
        Billboards are a safety issue.
      • BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        > you don't like the aesthetic so Who says I don't like the aesthetic? I can like the aesthetic of something and also acknowledge the harm it causes. It's kinda weird that your response is to make things up about me here.
      • BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        I just went through some of your comment history, and it strikes me as interesting that you very recently said: "It's easy to spot political tribalism - just reference the comments here. They ultimately misrepresent, and have never tried to understand, their opposition's political position. It's kind of sad because it allows them to be manipulated by propaganda" This is exactly what you just did by fabricating knowledge of my aesthetic taste. I hope this fact is as intriguing to you as it is to me.
• rayiner 2y ago
  I wonder if it would be popular enough to get a constitutional amendment to do it (in the US, where one likely would be required).
• CobrastanJorji 2y ago
  > If ads were merely about being informative, they would be boring. I disagree. Lots of entities want to get information out, and they're all competing for attention. This includes a lot of manipulative information, but it's also true for important information. Say that I'm a government agency tasked with informing the public that a certain brand of car seat is unsafe, or just reminding people that wearing safety equipment is a good idea. I can't just publish it on the agency website, confident that everybody will routinely check it. People don't work like that. So, if I really want people to listen, I have to compete in the same way that ads do. And this of course explains why the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's online presence is batshit insane: https://bsky.app/profile/cpsc.gov https://bsky.app/profile/cpsc.gov . It needs to be. They need Sentinel Burrito to warn you that unattended cooking is the #1 cause of house fires because otherwise our stupid brains won't listen.
• tim333 2y ago
  There's good and bad from advertising. I think it needs to be regulated and restricted more than banned. They did some study and where advertising was banned prices were higher because low cost providers couldn't put up a get it cheaper here ad. In the UK solicitors are banned from advertising and it makes getting one an expensive pain in the arse. In olden days we used to get a classified ads newspaper through the door and that was good as you could pick it up if you wanted to check out the ads or ignore/chuck it otherwise. I'd be fine with ads if I had to click to see them. It's having them in your face when you don't want them that's a pain.
• ryandvm 2y ago
  Absolutely agree. If you follow it all the way, advertising and the insatiable demand for consumer attention is the root of so many of our social problems. 24 hour network news bubbles, social media addiction, pharmaceutical companies spending more on advertising than R&D, etc. It all comes down to companies having to abuse the end users because to leave advertising money on the table is to go out of business.