3 ms·
> because children are not competent to voluntarily participate in the economy. But isn't it still up to the parents to decide what to buy? There's a campaign
by nandemo 13y ago
> because children are not competent to voluntarily participate in the economy.
But isn't it still up to the parents to decide what to buy?
There's a campaign in my country (Brazil) to ban/regulate all sorts of advertising to children, and I've heard some parents who support it claim (essentially) that they can't say "no" to their children. As someone who grew up in a lower-middle-class family and understood very early that I couldn't have all the toys, or even all the toys my slightly higher-middle-class classmates had, I find that trend rather bizarre.
- leot 13y agoWhat harm is there in banning advertisement directed at children? Perhaps they may become less well equipped to deal with advertising as adults (but this seems an easy enough problem to solve). Conversely, the benefits of banning children-directed advertising are huge.
- harryh 13y agoIt was easy (relatively) for your parents to say "no" because they just couldn't afford it. It's much harder when you can afford it, but you don't think it's good for them to buy your kid YetAnotherPieceOfCrapTheyveBeenAdvertisedIntoWanting(tm).
- wildgift 13y agoThere are some parents who will not say "no", and there are some children who will holler until they get their way. The advertisers know this, and will take advantage of it. Different families deal with demand and desire for products differently.