Comment by margalabargala
2 months ago
> If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes.
This would result in a better world still, without the authoritarian system you describe. No need to get it perfect the first try, just start small.
For an example of this in action, drive through any of the US states that do not allow billboards.
Many complex problems can become easier if we can accept that the solutions can be malleable and designed to adapt. We just don’t really apply that to laws for the most part.
I don’t know if it’s America or tech people but online discourse of legal systems from American tech people seems to treat laws as code, something to interpret as written rather than the meaning. Loopholes are celebrated as being clever and are impossible to patch. This is quite alien to most of the world.
Although it should be said the economic success of the Americans hitherto is also quite foreign to the rest of the world; and driven mainly by their legal quirks.
5 replies →
[dead]
We absolutely do, and in fact doing so is the primary job of many of the higher courts in the US.
But how do you define advertising. What about social media influencers? How to prevent someone from paying people to promote stuff? What if it is forbidden and then only a bad government can promote their agenda, but anyone else cannot.
We don't define advertising, we describe the sorts of things we would like to see go away, enumerate some of the easiest (like billboards), and amend in the future as newer manifestations become clear.
This isn't some piece of rigidly-defined software instruction that also is somehow write-once execute-forever amend-never.
Make paying to promote stuff is what the author asserted.
If it also results in all the social media influencers behind bars, then its a double-win.