← Back to context

Comment by Henchman21

2 months ago

This is precisely the sort of statement that derails the discussion and makes it impossible to even have. I imagine there’s a name for this sort of thing, perhaps some exquisitely long German word?

So lets do this: ban all ads in print, video, and in-public. Make the fine so high that you’re going to have to declare bankruptcy and close up shop. Or just straight up revoke corporate charters. There’s your line. I’m happy to start here and negotiate backwards. But this needs to be in effect while we work it out. Advertising is killing us. I don’t need or want myself or my family constantly assaulted by ads.

Finally, to be frank I find advertisements a sibling of propaganda. I don’t want either.

6 comments

Henchman21

Reply
shadowgovt  2 months ago

One man's propaganda is another man's truth-to-power.

There are dangerous consequences to handing the government the authority to ban public communication (even about mouthwash brands) without very careful scrutiny.

Imagine if you couldn't advertise energy alternatives because oil and gas came first and, with advertising banned, we can't even talk about the relative merits of installing solar vs. buying coal-made grid electricity. The status quo will maintain until the planet cooks.

  • makapuf  2 months ago

    There is a big difference between advertising and information. First, most people are generally not being paid by big energy alternatives to promote it. Of course we can talk about things. What we wouldn't be able is to be paid by someone to have a specific public discourse.

    • shadowgovt  2 months ago

      > There's a big difference between advertising and information

      I recommend looking up the videos they made in the 1950s about how to use modern appliances, telephones, etc. and then noting that those videos were mostly paid for by the companies that manufactured those goods because they had a vested interest in people knowing how to use the tools so they would buy the tool.

      > What we wouldn't be able is to be paid by someone to have a specific public discourse.

      Widecast public communications always cost money. Always. Somebody is putting money forward to put a message on that billboard, or on that radio, or on that website. If we ban advertising but we aren't banning billboards, radio, and websites, we are tying off one category of communicator. Cynically, I would expect the result to not be an end to commercial advertising, but for more commercial advertising disguised as other things. I don't know that we would be able to disambiguate the two ideas, not in a world where, for example, public television programs are supported by the Sears Roebuck Corporation.

      2 replies →