4 ms·

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

by austin-cheney 10mo ago

cm2012 10mo ago
Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother
- oompydoompy74 10mo ago
  Good?
  - iknowstuff 10mo ago
    Not as good when you just end up having to pay more for services right
    - mc32 10mo ago
      The incentives are better aligned though, so long as they are not undermined (by moving the target) Ala cable tv.
    - oompydoompy74 10mo ago
      Nope still good
- MichaelZuo 10mo ago
  Isn’t that presumably the point of the Vietnamese government whenever they set new requirements? To make it harder for people who dont care about Vietnam to do business.
- mjamesaustin 10mo ago
  Ad skipping should be handled at the platform level and not left to individual advertisers to control. Regulations like this make such an outcome more likely. Mobile ads in the US are heinous. Each one has a different mechanism for skipping, the skip buttons are micro sized and impossible to tap, some of them don't even work. Standardization should have been up to the platforms selling ads, but they haven't done it. It's past time for local authorities to step in and protect consumers from predatory behavior.
- hasperdi 10mo ago
  why is it a bad thing if global advertisers have to customize? If they're global, they should have the resources. Anyhow none of our concerns
- bobro 10mo ago
  Can you spell out more what’s wrong with distorting a market or customizing for local audiences?
- mystraline 10mo ago
  Simply put, fuck the "market" (aka: uber-rich people). The market should serve us humans, not the other way around. Ive heard this garbage excuse since Reagan took a wrecking ball to regulations. Not making effective regulations is ALSO a market distorting thing, that encourages the absolute worst behaviors. And now with Citizens United, its $1 = 1 vote. But no, "marrrrrkeeeeetttttt"
- pbasista 10mo ago
  > market distortionary I am unsure what you are trying to say here. But if you mean to refer to "market distortion", I cannot see how that can be happening. The reason is that these rules are supposed to be applicable universally to every company in the same way. And as such, they do not create any market distortion in one way or the other. Because everyone has to play by the same rules. Those are as fair market conditions as one can get, in my opinion. > some might not bother Why should that be a problem? If someone does not like the regulation in a particular jurisdiction, it is fine. No one is forcing them to operate there. The main point is the following: If they want to operate, they have to play by the local rules. Just like everyone else.
- themaninthedark 10mo ago
  I would assume that the global advertisers are already having to customize for the local audience since the spoken language is Vietnamese.
- einpoklum 10mo ago
  Markets are not a natural phenomenon and are themselves the result of complex social arrangements, involving coercion. So, the market is the result of "distortions" before and after various regulatory measures.
- BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
  > market distortionary So what if it is? > makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience My understanding of advertising is that there is already substantial customization for local audiences.
echelon 10mo ago
Second order effects. Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets. This means the tech platform makes less revenue. This means the platform and the video creator both make less revenue. This means less videos get created. All of these happen at the population level. I hate ads, but regulations that are for things that aren't public health (including mental health), anti-monopolization, etc. are probably bad for innovation and growth. You have to balance regulation and over-regulation.
- thfuran 10mo ago
  >Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets. Great. Once that happens, we can work on regulation to kill even more advertising.
- ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago
  Too many people think removing ads means they'll still continue to get content for free, they just won't have to watch ads. At best, it's as you said, the platform and creator make less money (Youtube gives 55% of ad revenue to the creator). This would naturally lead to less content eventually. At worst, video content becomes unsustainable without a subscription.
  - BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
    > This would naturally lead to less content eventually I, personally, am drowning in "content".
    - echelon 10mo ago
      > I, personally, am drowning in "content". Until the content is utterly captivating and speaks to your soul in a way even your closest friends and partners can't, we haven't hit peak content. You know that one movie you see every decade or so that you can't get out of your head? The one that left you flabbergasted, that you've watched at least half a dozen times, and that you frequently and fondly remember? It touched your mind and soul and fit your tastes like a glove. THAT is peak content, and until we are swimming in it, we're not there yet. Most of what we have today is utterly disposable and ephemeral - transient dopamine activation instead of philosophically world shattering indelible experiences. We have a long way to go.
catapart 10mo ago
Just a hip-shot, not a considered position. When I hear "regulation", I think "threat". Either of violence (any physical touch), or financial garnishment. So, to me, ads that last longer than five seconds do not rise to the level of threatening anyone. But assuming that they did, the situation seems like one where there could be any number or ways of following the letter or the law, while flouting the spirit of it. I don't dare imagine the creative ways these people will come up with to make entertainment even worse than it already is. So for areas that seem to require miles and miles of caveats and very specific rule-making, my gut reaction is that the regulatory path isn't the right one until we can break down the scope into something that simple regulations can accommodate without loophole. Put more simply: if it seems like people will just find ways around the problem, my assumption is just that we're not targeting the right problem yet and we need to break it down further, if regulation is the right solution at all. But that is pretty assumptive, so - again - it's just a first feeling. Doesn't pass my vibe check.
- miki123211 10mo ago
  I personally like descriptive regulation over prescriptive regulation. Instead of prescribing exactly what you should do, describe the outcomes you want, and let case law fill in the rest of the owl. That's the only way to prevent violations like this. To be fair, the main disadvantage of this approach is that law is much harder to understand. You can't just read the law as it is written, you also have to familiarize yourself with all the rulings that tell you how that law should actually be interpreted.
  - dnqthao 10mo ago
    Vietnam does not follow common law (i.e. case law) , it follows civil law (same as other Europe and Asia countries)
simplicio 10mo ago
Think the best argument against it is that it makes advertising less valuable, which in turn limits the how many "paid for with advertising" services will be available and how good those services will be. Especially in a developing country where consumers ability to pay for such things is going to be limited, that will presumably deprive some margin of the population of media/services that are currently ad supported.
- austin-cheney 10mo ago
  I am fine with advertising becoming less valuable. I fully appreciate there is a lot of media I take for granted due to advertising. Yet, ever since I was a small child the goal of advertising was to influence consumer behavior more than selling products or brand identity, which is extremely toxic. Once consumer gullibility wears off the dollars poured into advertising always find a way into political lobbying and policy influence campaigns, which is really just more of the same.
- thinkingtoilet 10mo ago
  Funny, I would say making advertising less valuable is big win.
  - pixl97 10mo ago
    Heh, advertizing, individually has become less valuable because there are so many ads everywhere on every surface to the point that people mentally adblock half their day away.
- 63stack 10mo ago
  One of those mythical "win win win" scenarios
- hdgvhicv 10mo ago
  Why would I an advertiser pay $1 to show an advert to someone that doesn’t have $1 to spend on my product. If they do have a dollar to spend then why wouldn’t they spend it on what they wanted to watch in the first place rather than spend it with me, the advertiser.

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

cm2012 10mo ago

Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother

oompydoompy74 10mo ago
Good?
- iknowstuff 10mo ago
  Not as good when you just end up having to pay more for services right
  - mc32 10mo ago
    The incentives are better aligned though, so long as they are not undermined (by moving the target) Ala cable tv.
  - oompydoompy74 10mo ago
    Nope still good
MichaelZuo 10mo ago
Isn’t that presumably the point of the Vietnamese government whenever they set new requirements? To make it harder for people who dont care about Vietnam to do business.
mjamesaustin 10mo ago
Ad skipping should be handled at the platform level and not left to individual advertisers to control. Regulations like this make such an outcome more likely. Mobile ads in the US are heinous. Each one has a different mechanism for skipping, the skip buttons are micro sized and impossible to tap, some of them don't even work. Standardization should have been up to the platforms selling ads, but they haven't done it. It's past time for local authorities to step in and protect consumers from predatory behavior.
hasperdi 10mo ago
why is it a bad thing if global advertisers have to customize? If they're global, they should have the resources. Anyhow none of our concerns
bobro 10mo ago
Can you spell out more what’s wrong with distorting a market or customizing for local audiences?
mystraline 10mo ago
Simply put, fuck the "market" (aka: uber-rich people). The market should serve us humans, not the other way around. Ive heard this garbage excuse since Reagan took a wrecking ball to regulations. Not making effective regulations is ALSO a market distorting thing, that encourages the absolute worst behaviors. And now with Citizens United, its $1 = 1 vote. But no, "marrrrrkeeeeetttttt"
pbasista 10mo ago
> market distortionary I am unsure what you are trying to say here. But if you mean to refer to "market distortion", I cannot see how that can be happening. The reason is that these rules are supposed to be applicable universally to every company in the same way. And as such, they do not create any market distortion in one way or the other. Because everyone has to play by the same rules. Those are as fair market conditions as one can get, in my opinion. > some might not bother Why should that be a problem? If someone does not like the regulation in a particular jurisdiction, it is fine. No one is forcing them to operate there. The main point is the following: If they want to operate, they have to play by the local rules. Just like everyone else.
themaninthedark 10mo ago
I would assume that the global advertisers are already having to customize for the local audience since the spoken language is Vietnamese.
einpoklum 10mo ago
Markets are not a natural phenomenon and are themselves the result of complex social arrangements, involving coercion. So, the market is the result of "distortions" before and after various regulatory measures.
BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
> market distortionary So what if it is? > makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience My understanding of advertising is that there is already substantial customization for local audiences.

echelon 10mo ago

Second order effects. Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets. This means the tech platform makes less revenue. This means the platform and the video creator both make less revenue. This means less videos get created. All of these happen at the population level. I hate ads, but regulations that are for things that aren't public health (including mental health), anti-monopolization, etc. are probably bad for innovation and growth. You have to balance regulation and over-regulation.

thfuran 10mo ago
>Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets. Great. Once that happens, we can work on regulation to kill even more advertising.
ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago
Too many people think removing ads means they'll still continue to get content for free, they just won't have to watch ads. At best, it's as you said, the platform and creator make less money (Youtube gives 55% of ad revenue to the creator). This would naturally lead to less content eventually. At worst, video content becomes unsustainable without a subscription.
- BigTTYGothGF 10mo ago
  > This would naturally lead to less content eventually I, personally, am drowning in "content".
  - echelon 10mo ago
    > I, personally, am drowning in "content". Until the content is utterly captivating and speaks to your soul in a way even your closest friends and partners can't, we haven't hit peak content. You know that one movie you see every decade or so that you can't get out of your head? The one that left you flabbergasted, that you've watched at least half a dozen times, and that you frequently and fondly remember? It touched your mind and soul and fit your tastes like a glove. THAT is peak content, and until we are swimming in it, we're not there yet. Most of what we have today is utterly disposable and ephemeral - transient dopamine activation instead of philosophically world shattering indelible experiences. We have a long way to go.

catapart 10mo ago

Just a hip-shot, not a considered position. When I hear "regulation", I think "threat". Either of violence (any physical touch), or financial garnishment. So, to me, ads that last longer than five seconds do not rise to the level of threatening anyone. But assuming that they did, the situation seems like one where there could be any number or ways of following the letter or the law, while flouting the spirit of it. I don't dare imagine the creative ways these people will come up with to make entertainment even worse than it already is. So for areas that seem to require miles and miles of caveats and very specific rule-making, my gut reaction is that the regulatory path isn't the right one until we can break down the scope into something that simple regulations can accommodate without loophole. Put more simply: if it seems like people will just find ways around the problem, my assumption is just that we're not targeting the right problem yet and we need to break it down further, if regulation is the right solution at all. But that is pretty assumptive, so - again - it's just a first feeling. Doesn't pass my vibe check.

miki123211 10mo ago
I personally like descriptive regulation over prescriptive regulation. Instead of prescribing exactly what you should do, describe the outcomes you want, and let case law fill in the rest of the owl. That's the only way to prevent violations like this. To be fair, the main disadvantage of this approach is that law is much harder to understand. You can't just read the law as it is written, you also have to familiarize yourself with all the rulings that tell you how that law should actually be interpreted.
- dnqthao 10mo ago
  Vietnam does not follow common law (i.e. case law) , it follows civil law (same as other Europe and Asia countries)

simplicio 10mo ago

Think the best argument against it is that it makes advertising less valuable, which in turn limits the how many "paid for with advertising" services will be available and how good those services will be. Especially in a developing country where consumers ability to pay for such things is going to be limited, that will presumably deprive some margin of the population of media/services that are currently ad supported.

austin-cheney 10mo ago
I am fine with advertising becoming less valuable. I fully appreciate there is a lot of media I take for granted due to advertising. Yet, ever since I was a small child the goal of advertising was to influence consumer behavior more than selling products or brand identity, which is extremely toxic. Once consumer gullibility wears off the dollars poured into advertising always find a way into political lobbying and policy influence campaigns, which is really just more of the same.
thinkingtoilet 10mo ago
Funny, I would say making advertising less valuable is big win.
- pixl97 10mo ago
  Heh, advertizing, individually has become less valuable because there are so many ads everywhere on every surface to the point that people mentally adblock half their day away.
63stack 10mo ago
One of those mythical "win win win" scenarios
hdgvhicv 10mo ago
Why would I an advertiser pay $1 to show an advert to someone that doesn’t have $1 to spend on my product. If they do have a dollar to spend then why wouldn’t they spend it on what they wanted to watch in the first place rather than spend it with me, the advertiser.