3 ms·

Censorship is not a solution. Instead, companies, whose messages are misleading, could pay a fine for their misleading message. Otherwise, you end up in 1984...

Censorship is not a solution. Instead, companies, whose messages are misleading, could pay a fine for their misleading message. Otherwise, you end up in 1984...sorry, I mistyped "UK in 2026".

tw04 7mo ago
A fine doesn’t undo a lie that’s already made it around the world. Although given Brexit I’d question how useful the ASA actually is. It seems Russian funded politicians were free to spew endless lies at the average citizen with no repercussions.
- LtdJorge 7mo ago
  Then, make them pay for an ad apology where they retract their previous one, and which runs for at least the same time.
youngNed 7mo ago
No. You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.
- wasfgwp 7mo ago
  That’s a solved problem, though? Just adjust the fine based on the company’s revenue
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    It's only "solved" if the solution is actually happening.
- nailer 7mo ago
  > J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't. Would the UK government actually stop any of these advertisers? It seems more likely they would stop people critcising the UK government.
pjc50 7mo ago
I'd be cool fining Meta 1% of global revenue for every fraudulent ad on their platform.
- kspacewalk2 7mo ago
  Ditto for Alphabet with scammy and malicious Youtube ads.
direwolf20 7mo ago
That's literally censorship though. If you get fined for saying a thing, you are being censored.
- benj111 7mo ago
  Go to a theatre and start shouting "fire" Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence. And this is a bloody ad on the TV.
  - godelski 7mo ago
    You can shout fire in a theater all you want. What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic. The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
    - benj111 7mo ago
      And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. So the comparison works.
      - godelski 7mo ago
        > And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Yes, and very often those companies get sued. I'll agree no often enough. But I'll also note that the outrage leading up to the lawsuit is far more visible than the results of that legal action. I'll also agree that that legal action is often too slow. > Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. The lie has to be believable and cause damage. Was the unclear from my comment? Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

Censorship is not a solution. Instead, companies, whose messages are misleading, could pay a fine for their misleading message. Otherwise, you end up in 1984...sorry, I mistyped "UK in 2026".

tw04 7mo ago

A fine doesn’t undo a lie that’s already made it around the world. Although given Brexit I’d question how useful the ASA actually is. It seems Russian funded politicians were free to spew endless lies at the average citizen with no repercussions.

LtdJorge 7mo ago
Then, make them pay for an ad apology where they retract their previous one, and which runs for at least the same time.

youngNed 7mo ago

No. You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.

wasfgwp 7mo ago
That’s a solved problem, though? Just adjust the fine based on the company’s revenue
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  It's only "solved" if the solution is actually happening.
nailer 7mo ago
> J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't. Would the UK government actually stop any of these advertisers? It seems more likely they would stop people critcising the UK government.

pjc50 7mo ago

I'd be cool fining Meta 1% of global revenue for every fraudulent ad on their platform.

kspacewalk2 7mo ago
Ditto for Alphabet with scammy and malicious Youtube ads.

direwolf20 7mo ago

That's literally censorship though. If you get fined for saying a thing, you are being censored.

benj111 7mo ago
Go to a theatre and start shouting "fire" Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence. And this is a bloody ad on the TV.
- godelski 7mo ago
  You can shout fire in a theater all you want. What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic. The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
  - benj111 7mo ago
    And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. So the comparison works.
    - godelski 7mo ago
      > And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Yes, and very often those companies get sued. I'll agree no often enough. But I'll also note that the outrage leading up to the lawsuit is far more visible than the results of that legal action. I'll also agree that that legal action is often too slow. > Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. The lie has to be believable and cause damage. Was the unclear from my comment? Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.