4 ms·
I do not recall ever hearing of an organized effort to ban ads. These days, good luck getting bipartisan agreement, especially with all the dark money in polit
by RajT88 2mo ago
I do not recall ever hearing of an organized effort to ban ads. These days, good luck getting bipartisan agreement, especially with all the dark money in politics being legalized and normalized.
That said... The modern internet is built off many free services paid for by people who buy stuff from ads. It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear. Hosting costs money.
I could see a dystopia without ads where a government provides free hosting for citizens. That quickly becomes "thought police" when an authoritarian leading head of state comes in. If we pretend like that will not happen, I think we would have a much more wonderful internet.
- amelius 2mo ago> It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear. Don't you see the problem with that statement? Ads are profitable, and we are paying for them, indirectly, through buying products and services. Adtech takes a chunk of that profit. Therefore, we pay more than we should!
- benj111 2mo agoSo you are paying more than you should for a loaf of bread because your local shop is making a profit? because if you went to the factory you could buy the same loaf for less? Of course you could make the bread yourself for even less because the factory is making a profit, and grow the wheat yourself for even less because the farmer is making a profit. You are not 'paying more than you should'. Not least because there is no price you 'should' be paying. Further I'm not sure how you imagine this working? The retailer gets to decide prices or not? They get to decide if they advertise or not? The advertiser's have competition? The retailers? Retailers are presumably choosing to advertise because they think it's worth it, thus it is? You are free to choose to buy those products, that will feed into their decision whether and how to advertise.
- functionmouse 2mo agoAre you equating the shopkeeper across the street earning 15 an hour to sell me my loaf of bread to the advertisement industrial complex?
- benj111 2mo agoWhy are we appealing to emotion? Why a shopkeeper on 15 and hour and not Walmart? Why the advertising industrial complex and not some small 1 man advertising firm?
- amelius 2mo agoThat's a fallacy like the broken window fallacy. In no way is the consumer helped here, in the end. To make things worse, the consumer is nudged into buying more stuff and thus contributing to global overconsumption.
- benj111 2mo agoI'm not saying the consumer is helped. I'm saying that all businesses aim to make money, so the fact that this one is doesn't make it morally wrong. Further you've ascribed some price we 'should' be paying. There's no such thing, and you can't even say that prices would be lower without it. Tobacco companies haven't lowered prices in countries where advertising is banned. >To make things worse, the consumer is nudged into buying more stuff and thus contributing to global overconsumption A. Surely the consumer would have bought something else? Although gambling advertising is popular... B. You are now contradicting yourself. You made the claim that advertising was essentially an economic dead weight. Now you're saying it contributes to over consumption. If advertising only puts up prices, that means we can buy less things than we would be able to. C. This is assuming only bad things are advertised. In summary. You're trying to make a quasi economic argument against advertising that isn't really correct. I have my own issues with advertising, so I'm not particularly defending it. But that doesn't excuse making up an argument that doesn't make much sense.
- amelius 2mo agoThe entire problem is that you're looking at it from an economic perspective. From within that framework your reasoning might make sense, but that doesn't mean that with a different starting point it is still valid. > A + B No, because you can save money. And when you buy things not on a whim you might actually buy something that has lasting value as opposed to all the tons of cheap fashion people buy. > C. This is assuming only bad things are advertised. For good things, go to the yellow pages. I'm not against advertising. Just the forms where it is shoved in my face randomly instead of brought up when I am actively looking for something and want to be informed about products, and of course the forms that have user tracking.
- nemomarx 2mo agoThe point of ads is generally to tempt you to make purchases where the alternative is having nothing. So the comparison I think is more like grocery stores putting junk food right in the checkout to try and have you buy some on impulse?
- benj111 2mo agoI'm pushing back against the argument that the advertiser make money, ergo we are paying more than we 'should'. That's how businesses work. The shop makes money when you buy things, so surely the same argument should apply. Except it doesn't, because that is an acceptable business, so the argument isn't really an argument.
- inigyou 2mo agoI don't care. It was better before there were ads. It will be better after there are ads. Most actual useful content isn't monetised, and most monetised content is slop. There is a spectrum between the two endpoints, of course.
- functionmouse 2mo agoMy town banned billboards entirely. It's been a resounding success.
- Marsymars 2mo ago> I do not recall ever hearing of an organized effort to ban ads. See e.g. https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Measure_5,_Prohibit_Billboards_Measure_(1998) https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Measure_5,_Prohibit_Billboard...
- pavel_lishin 2mo ago> It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear. It is hard to imagine a world without horses & carts; many businesses would disappear.
- Gander5739 2mo agoHorses and carts didn't need to be banned to become obsolete.