4 ms·

so is it a pitchfork idea? I want Mark’s head? or it’s impractical? you’ve changed your apprehension to my idea twice in two comments constitutional roadblock…

by dkdcio 11mo ago

so is it a pitchfork idea? I want Mark’s head? or it’s impractical? you’ve changed your apprehension to my idea twice in two comments constitutional roadblock…to banning digital advertisement? please do explain! I didn’t claim it’s easy to get it done in the real world, but it’s not a reactive/vindictive pitchfork idea. it’s really not that hard, if people wanted it we’ve banned plenty of things at the federal level in this country over the years (the hard part is of course people realizing how detrimental digital advertising is) it’s a simple solution that’s very effective. obviously any large-scale change, to fix a large-scale problem, is not “simple” to implement, but it’s also not fucking rocket science on this one mate you’re clearly not having a conversation in good faith. you asked, I answered, I’m done with this

Aurornis 11mo ago
I’ve not changed anything, I was asking for realistic suggestions. You’re throwing out unrealistic suggestions. Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple and effective. These are just silly ways of thinking about the world.
- dkdcio 11mo ago
  you’re just doing ad hominems and strawmans. I’m not suggesting banning anything other than digital advertisement. you’re not open to having a productive discussion about it, just misdirection and whataboutism please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually given it the thought you’re pretending to and still reach that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at you
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    > p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! You don’t need to hear my argument against it. The fact that advertising your services is free speech is well established. It’s a major challenge for movements like those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising. Also, if you can’t see how I’ve been addressing your arguments and you think it’s all ad hominem then I don’t think there’s any real conversation to be had here. Between all the downvotes you’re collecting and the weird attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it’s ad hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at this point.
    - dkdcio 11mo ago
      2 points: 1) downvotes: you’re the one insinuating HN commenters (and presumably voters) are idiots; I’m not sure that I should care if I’m downvoted while correct. and regardless, doesn’t seem like I’m very downvoted (rather the opposite) so not sure what your point is. try making one next time! 2) freedom of speech: lol! I just want to point out I had no fucking clue that’s what you were angling for before. rather than launch into attacks as you do, I actually try to understand things. this argument doesn’t concern me at all, I was worried I wasn’t aware of something in the constitution you’d brilliantly raise we are beyond having a conversation at this point, but if you actually raised your arguments against banning digital advertisement (freedom of speech and ??? solving real-world problems is hard?) I would have debated them on their merits, you troll
Supermancho 11mo ago
> so is it a pitchfork idea? What constitutes an advertisement is not a simple proposition. eg Is a paragraph describing some facts (phrased carefully) about a product or company an advertisement? To what effect speech would have to be controlled to enforce this, is unthinkable. While some handwaving is necessary, as anyone can agree (since even the simplest legislation would be corrupted by the US political class), "banning advertising" is not a practical goal.
- dkdcio 11mo ago
  payment. exchange of goods or services worth $$$ it’s quite a simple definition of what is or is not advertisement. run it through real world examples, it’s trivial to say whether something is or isn’t an advertisement as with any broad regulation there would be grey areas, continued cat and mouse games with bad actors, etc. but it is not a remotely insurmountable obstacle to define what is and is not advertisement in relation to free speech (as an aside it’s really funny to me anyone would consider being paid to say something free speech, but I get it)

by dkdcio 11mo ago

Aurornis 11mo ago

I’ve not changed anything, I was asking for realistic suggestions. You’re throwing out unrealistic suggestions. Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple and effective. These are just silly ways of thinking about the world.

dkdcio 11mo ago
you’re just doing ad hominems and strawmans. I’m not suggesting banning anything other than digital advertisement. you’re not open to having a productive discussion about it, just misdirection and whataboutism please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually given it the thought you’re pretending to and still reach that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at you
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  > p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! You don’t need to hear my argument against it. The fact that advertising your services is free speech is well established. It’s a major challenge for movements like those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising. Also, if you can’t see how I’ve been addressing your arguments and you think it’s all ad hominem then I don’t think there’s any real conversation to be had here. Between all the downvotes you’re collecting and the weird attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it’s ad hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at this point.
  - dkdcio 11mo ago
    2 points: 1) downvotes: you’re the one insinuating HN commenters (and presumably voters) are idiots; I’m not sure that I should care if I’m downvoted while correct. and regardless, doesn’t seem like I’m very downvoted (rather the opposite) so not sure what your point is. try making one next time! 2) freedom of speech: lol! I just want to point out I had no fucking clue that’s what you were angling for before. rather than launch into attacks as you do, I actually try to understand things. this argument doesn’t concern me at all, I was worried I wasn’t aware of something in the constitution you’d brilliantly raise we are beyond having a conversation at this point, but if you actually raised your arguments against banning digital advertisement (freedom of speech and ??? solving real-world problems is hard?) I would have debated them on their merits, you troll

Supermancho 11mo ago

> so is it a pitchfork idea? What constitutes an advertisement is not a simple proposition. eg Is a paragraph describing some facts (phrased carefully) about a product or company an advertisement? To what effect speech would have to be controlled to enforce this, is unthinkable. While some handwaving is necessary, as anyone can agree (since even the simplest legislation would be corrupted by the US political class), "banning advertising" is not a practical goal.

dkdcio 11mo ago
payment. exchange of goods or services worth $$$ it’s quite a simple definition of what is or is not advertisement. run it through real world examples, it’s trivial to say whether something is or isn’t an advertisement as with any broad regulation there would be grey areas, continued cat and mouse games with bad actors, etc. but it is not a remotely insurmountable obstacle to define what is and is not advertisement in relation to free speech (as an aside it’s really funny to me anyone would consider being paid to say something free speech, but I get it)