3 ms·

Let's drop the charade where you pretend you don't know what advertising is. You're smarter than that, and your playing dumb act would be more persuasive if you

Let's drop the charade where you pretend you don't know what advertising is. You're smarter than that, and your playing dumb act would be more persuasive if you didn't ask leading questions that clearly show you know the answers. This isn't a good faith argument. I mean are you really asking whether creators embedding "sponsored by" scenes is an ad as if you don't know? C'mon, don't insult your readers with this nonsense. HN commenters are not legislators, and even if random HN commenters can't draft legislation, that doesn't mean that a minimally-funded team of experts would have any difficulty with the problem.

maccard 8mo ago
OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line. If I receive compensation from company A for a product, and I genuinely like it, is it advertising if I talk about another item on their product line that I bought because of the free item I got? If I run a retail business, and have a better deal with a provider, am I allowed to prioritise their results? If I run an AI SAAS, with a bring your own key model, am I allowed to recommend a provider that I think gives the best results, even if my margin is bigger on that model? I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video. > HN commenters are not legislators That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. > a minimally funded team of experts would have any difficulty with the problem. I’m a hugely pro EU person, and support the vast majority of what they do. The Cookie Banner is a disaster and has just resulted in a massive step back for the Internet worldwide. The USB C charger rule missed the forest for the trees. Their stance on technology has been poor, misguided and misunderstood, and often pushes the needle towards US companies winning out.
- saalweachter 8mo ago
  >> HN commenters are not legislators > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. I would even go so far as to say that HN commenters are going to be the ones trying to evade/break/find the loopholes in whatever laws the legislators write.
- owisd 8mo ago
  >> HN commenters are not legislators > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. To steel man, there's a commenting pattern where if someone doesn't like a high-level idea they demand answers to a dozen specifics that, if it were a legitimate proposal going through a legislature, could take hundreds of people months or years of committees, reports & consultations to decide on all the answers to, but if someone can't come up with an answer on the spot in HN then that's taken as proof that the idea is unworkable.
  - maccard 8mo ago
    I’m just going to paste a section of my comment above to you > I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video.
- kerkeslager 8mo ago
  > OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line. Sorry, it just isn't, at least not in a lot of the examples he gave. It's not ambiguous whether "sponsored by" scenes on YouTube are ads: they're ads, and bringing them up only highlights how many OBVIOUSLY NOT BLURRY situations exist that we could easily ban. > I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video. Well, whether you're trying to gish gallop or not, you're succeeding! You're simply ignoring the obvious: it seems you agree that billboards and sponsored VPN segments on YT videos are obviously ads. So we can ban those. > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. And I'm equally allowed to point out when what passes for "discussion" here is nakedly disingenuous pro-advertising FUD. Sorry, I just don't believe that you're too stupid to identify advertising when it's blatantly obvious. It's a compliment! You're intelligent! Sure, there are some ambiguous situations, and that simply does not matter. Ban the obvious cases, then iterate to close further loopholes. > I’m a hugely pro EU person, and support the vast majority of what they do. The Cookie Banner is a disaster and has just resulted in a massive step back for the Internet worldwide. The USB C charger rule missed the forest for the trees. Their stance on technology has been poor, misguided and misunderstood, and often pushes the needle towards US companies winning out. Is this the "discussion" you're talking about? It seems like you're just bringing up irrelevant stuff.
dwedge 8mo ago
I agree with you but I also agree with the person you wrote to. There's a section in Naomi Klein's No Logo about banning advertising, and what that would actually mean in effect. It essentially comes down to not allowing, for example, different cereal brands to have different designs because then the design of the box becomes a kind of advertising. It might sound nit picking, and it absolutely is, but if we banned Internet advertising (at the exact definition you personally consider advertising to be), you can guarantee the advertising industry would be looking at exactly these loopholes until you reframed your definition. It's much like how in the UK they banned advertising for tobacco, and years later had to expand it so that supermarkets cannot even show the products visibly because the brand has their own inherent advertising that's visible if you can see it.
- iso1631 8mo ago
  > It's much like how in the UK they banned advertising for tobacco, and years later had to expand it so that supermarkets cannot even show the products visibly because the brand has their own inherent advertising that's visible if you can see it. So they got rid of 90% of adverts, then adjusted it to get that upto 99% Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 100% on the first attempt"
  - dwedge 8mo ago
    > Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 100% on the first attempt" I said absolutely nothing of the sort and that hostile style of arguing has no place on this site. I will no longer be engaging with you.
    - iso1631 8mo ago
      You are implying there's no point in doing anything as people will find loopholes (which governments can then close) This site is no place for thought terminating cliches
    - kerkeslager 8mo ago

maccard 8mo ago

OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line. If I receive compensation from company A for a product, and I genuinely like it, is it advertising if I talk about another item on their product line that I bought because of the free item I got? If I run a retail business, and have a better deal with a provider, am I allowed to prioritise their results? If I run an AI SAAS, with a bring your own key model, am I allowed to recommend a provider that I think gives the best results, even if my margin is bigger on that model? I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video. > HN commenters are not legislators That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. > a minimally funded team of experts would have any difficulty with the problem. I’m a hugely pro EU person, and support the vast majority of what they do. The Cookie Banner is a disaster and has just resulted in a massive step back for the Internet worldwide. The USB C charger rule missed the forest for the trees. Their stance on technology has been poor, misguided and misunderstood, and often pushes the needle towards US companies winning out.

saalweachter 8mo ago
>> HN commenters are not legislators > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. I would even go so far as to say that HN commenters are going to be the ones trying to evade/break/find the loopholes in whatever laws the legislators write.
owisd 8mo ago
>> HN commenters are not legislators > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. To steel man, there's a commenting pattern where if someone doesn't like a high-level idea they demand answers to a dozen specifics that, if it were a legitimate proposal going through a legislature, could take hundreds of people months or years of committees, reports & consultations to decide on all the answers to, but if someone can't come up with an answer on the spot in HN then that's taken as proof that the idea is unworkable.
- maccard 8mo ago
  I’m just going to paste a section of my comment above to you > I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video.
kerkeslager 8mo ago
> OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line. Sorry, it just isn't, at least not in a lot of the examples he gave. It's not ambiguous whether "sponsored by" scenes on YouTube are ads: they're ads, and bringing them up only highlights how many OBVIOUSLY NOT BLURRY situations exist that we could easily ban. > I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video. Well, whether you're trying to gish gallop or not, you're succeeding! You're simply ignoring the obvious: it seems you agree that billboards and sponsored VPN segments on YT videos are obviously ads. So we can ban those. > That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it. And I'm equally allowed to point out when what passes for "discussion" here is nakedly disingenuous pro-advertising FUD. Sorry, I just don't believe that you're too stupid to identify advertising when it's blatantly obvious. It's a compliment! You're intelligent! Sure, there are some ambiguous situations, and that simply does not matter. Ban the obvious cases, then iterate to close further loopholes. > I’m a hugely pro EU person, and support the vast majority of what they do. The Cookie Banner is a disaster and has just resulted in a massive step back for the Internet worldwide. The USB C charger rule missed the forest for the trees. Their stance on technology has been poor, misguided and misunderstood, and often pushes the needle towards US companies winning out. Is this the "discussion" you're talking about? It seems like you're just bringing up irrelevant stuff.

dwedge 8mo ago

I agree with you but I also agree with the person you wrote to. There's a section in Naomi Klein's No Logo about banning advertising, and what that would actually mean in effect. It essentially comes down to not allowing, for example, different cereal brands to have different designs because then the design of the box becomes a kind of advertising. It might sound nit picking, and it absolutely is, but if we banned Internet advertising (at the exact definition you personally consider advertising to be), you can guarantee the advertising industry would be looking at exactly these loopholes until you reframed your definition. It's much like how in the UK they banned advertising for tobacco, and years later had to expand it so that supermarkets cannot even show the products visibly because the brand has their own inherent advertising that's visible if you can see it.

iso1631 8mo ago
> It's much like how in the UK they banned advertising for tobacco, and years later had to expand it so that supermarkets cannot even show the products visibly because the brand has their own inherent advertising that's visible if you can see it. So they got rid of 90% of adverts, then adjusted it to get that upto 99% Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 100% on the first attempt"
- dwedge 8mo ago
  > Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 100% on the first attempt" I said absolutely nothing of the sort and that hostile style of arguing has no place on this site. I will no longer be engaging with you.
  - iso1631 8mo ago
    You are implying there's no point in doing anything as people will find loopholes (which governments can then close) This site is no place for thought terminating cliches
  - kerkeslager 8mo ago