Comment by swisniewski

Digital content is not “published” in the same way as traditional content.

Digital content is published by placing data on a computer, connecting that computer to the intent, then running software on that computer that allows software on other computers to connect to it and download that content.

Attempting to ban ads is an attempt to censor the content of that communication. It’s analogous to attempting to ban the things people can say over telephone calls. It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

The Author’s points about “Dopamine Megaphones” and “tracking” don’t hold up.

Posting something online is not the same as yelling through a megaphone. And restrictions on tracking are about behavior, not speech.

One can outlaw both of those things without unreasonably restricting speech.

But banning ads is absolutely unreasonable restraint of free speech rights.

If I speak on the telephone, I am allowed to hand the phone to someone else for a moment and let them speak. Banning such a thing would be unconstitutional.

Many online ads work in the same way.

Similarly, I can take money from someone, and in response speak things they want me to speak. Restraining that is also a violation of free speech rights.

Just because online ads are horrible, doesn’t mean they can be outlawed without trampling on fundamental rights.