4 ms·

ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level

by dkdcio 11mo ago

justapassenger 11mo ago
We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil, coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  “Just ban everything I don’t like as long as it won’t impact anything I do like” is a frequent take on HN these days. Then when states start doing things like adding ID requirements for websites it’s shock and rage as the consequences of banning things (even for under 18s) encounter the realities of what happens when you “just ban” things.
  - opan 11mo ago
    I think we can separate the banning of things which affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't use that tile anymore. ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension seems clearly bad.
    - Aurornis 11mo ago
      > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment becomes out of control. Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only makes sense to people who can’t imagine consequences or think they don’t care. I guarantee you would change your mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as the consequence became obvious.
      - squigz 11mo ago
        Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that even mean? GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff society learned was harmful and then phased out with regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not happen overnight. Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine consequences"?
      - fzeroracer 11mo ago
        I'm curious: Where do you put the line? For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance. But it was also incredibly neurotoxic and damaging to society. Do you believe banning it was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs?
        warkdarrior 11mo ago
        > Do you believe banning [leaded gas] was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs? Who lost their job when leaded gas was banned? A web search did not give me any examples.
        fzeroracer 11mo ago
        The Ethyl Corporation primarily, they had to quickly diversify and adjust their business model as a result of the US phase out of tetraethyllead. They managed to stem some of the bleeding by simply just...selling the rest to other countries before they instituted their own restrictions on leaded gas (which tells you how ethically sound said business was) but this was a massive change at the time considering just about every vehicle used leaded gas even if it was a slow rollout.
        mrguyorama 11mo ago
        >For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance This is not true. We currently use ethanol to boost octane, and that additive was known at the time by the company that invented TEL, and they did not use it because they did not control the market for ethanol like they could control the market of a new and patented chemical. TEL was never actually necessary, and we poisoned ourselves for most of a decade to enrich a corporation. Large scale ethanol (as beer) production was one of humanity's earliest industries. Indeed, after we banned leaded gas, we tried using yet another stupid poison additive, MTBE, for a decade or so, and that continued to poison people because gas tanks leak and that chemical was toxic. Most of Asia actually still uses MTBE, to their detriment. Ethanol has never had this problem. Arguably, when Bush required all US gasoline to include 10-20% ethanol, he wasn't even trying to fix the poison problem of MTBE, he might have just been greenwashing and kicking more subsidies to corn growers, but it definitely solved the poisonous additive problem for octane boosters. Indeed, zero additives for octane are "required" at all. You can produce high octane gasoline just by choosing different refined components but this results in less gasoline produced per barrel of oil.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in here.
- opan 11mo ago
  I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids, we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also a lubricant.
- dkdcio 11mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
vincnetas 11mo ago
There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790 billion ad market for 2024"
- dkdcio 11mo ago
  yep! it’d be hard, but we’re already at most people nodding their head when you say “social media is addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and overall negative for society” you just got to get enough people to nod at “…and this is caused by the underlying incentives from digital advertisement” then to “and the most effective course of action is to ban digital advertisement” I truly don’t believe it’s a big leap, especially after a few more years of all this
Aurornis 11mo ago
> ban digital advertisement at a federal level This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting. It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.
- squigz 11mo ago
  Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2024-058903 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2... Why do you think it would be ineffective here? I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising. The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.
    - squigz 11mo ago
      > The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.
- dkdcio 11mo ago
  literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)

ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level

by dkdcio 11mo ago

ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level

justapassenger 11mo ago

We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil, coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids.

Aurornis 11mo ago
“Just ban everything I don’t like as long as it won’t impact anything I do like” is a frequent take on HN these days. Then when states start doing things like adding ID requirements for websites it’s shock and rage as the consequences of banning things (even for under 18s) encounter the realities of what happens when you “just ban” things.
- opan 11mo ago
  I think we can separate the banning of things which affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't use that tile anymore. ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension seems clearly bad.
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment becomes out of control. Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only makes sense to people who can’t imagine consequences or think they don’t care. I guarantee you would change your mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as the consequence became obvious.
    - squigz 11mo ago
      Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that even mean? GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff society learned was harmful and then phased out with regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not happen overnight. Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine consequences"?
    - fzeroracer 11mo ago
      I'm curious: Where do you put the line? For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance. But it was also incredibly neurotoxic and damaging to society. Do you believe banning it was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs?
      - warkdarrior 11mo ago
        > Do you believe banning [leaded gas] was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs? Who lost their job when leaded gas was banned? A web search did not give me any examples.
        fzeroracer 11mo ago
        The Ethyl Corporation primarily, they had to quickly diversify and adjust their business model as a result of the US phase out of tetraethyllead. They managed to stem some of the bleeding by simply just...selling the rest to other countries before they instituted their own restrictions on leaded gas (which tells you how ethically sound said business was) but this was a massive change at the time considering just about every vehicle used leaded gas even if it was a slow rollout.
      - mrguyorama 11mo ago
        >For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance This is not true. We currently use ethanol to boost octane, and that additive was known at the time by the company that invented TEL, and they did not use it because they did not control the market for ethanol like they could control the market of a new and patented chemical. TEL was never actually necessary, and we poisoned ourselves for most of a decade to enrich a corporation. Large scale ethanol (as beer) production was one of humanity's earliest industries. Indeed, after we banned leaded gas, we tried using yet another stupid poison additive, MTBE, for a decade or so, and that continued to poison people because gas tanks leak and that chemical was toxic. Most of Asia actually still uses MTBE, to their detriment. Ethanol has never had this problem. Arguably, when Bush required all US gasoline to include 10-20% ethanol, he wasn't even trying to fix the poison problem of MTBE, he might have just been greenwashing and kicking more subsidies to corn growers, but it definitely solved the poisonous additive problem for octane boosters. Indeed, zero additives for octane are "required" at all. You can produce high octane gasoline just by choosing different refined components but this results in less gasoline produced per barrel of oil.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in here.
opan 11mo ago
I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids, we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also a lubricant.
dkdcio 11mo ago
[dead]
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

vincnetas 11mo ago

There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790 billion ad market for 2024"

dkdcio 11mo ago
yep! it’d be hard, but we’re already at most people nodding their head when you say “social media is addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and overall negative for society” you just got to get enough people to nod at “…and this is caused by the underlying incentives from digital advertisement” then to “and the most effective course of action is to ban digital advertisement” I truly don’t believe it’s a big leap, especially after a few more years of all this

Aurornis 11mo ago

> ban digital advertisement at a federal level This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting. It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.

squigz 11mo ago
Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2024-058903 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2... Why do you think it would be ineffective here? I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising. The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    > The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.
dkdcio 11mo ago
literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)