Would you be interested in making a comment that adds to the conversation, instead of whatever this was? The person you're replying to identified constraints that prevent him from imagining it - any system for restricting advertisements will either be permissive enough that it's ineffective, or strict enough that it will be abused for political reasons. This sounds like a reasonable concern.
Can you imagine a realistic way around this issue?
The problem is the harder you try to imagine it, the less it looks like a better world.
Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy. Getting rid of a billboard for something I am never going to buy sounds great, but it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising. Even if there were some type of advertising that provided no benefit to any part of society, the restriction on the freedom to communicate those advertisements is something that harms all of us.
Sometimes the part of building a better world that takes the most effort is recognizing where we already have.
> Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy
I would argue that paid advertisement is a force distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able to buy you that power?
I mean most town squares have no restriction on using a megaphone, and yet town squares have not been drowned out and rendered useless by megaphones. Even if that did happen, it would be a very poor analogue to generic advertising which can not drown out conversation. At best it would be an argument against megaphones over a certain volume, ie certain methods of communication might be reasonable to restrict, but restricting the ideas that can be expressed by megaphone is indefensible.
> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising
and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who is drawing a revenue from it.
People who proclaim that doing XYZ to make the world better, is not really considering the entirety of the world - just their corner. To claim that it would make the world better, they must show evidence that it doesn't hurt somebody else (who just happens to be in a different tribe to the proposer).
But it’s kind of great for the upshot who can’t afford the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can.
And it’s kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds, thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who don’t have some eye soar blocking their view.
Your argument is basically that there are some people who benefit from advertising—I promise you anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.
Would you be interested in making a comment that adds to the conversation, instead of whatever this was? The person you're replying to identified constraints that prevent him from imagining it - any system for restricting advertisements will either be permissive enough that it's ineffective, or strict enough that it will be abused for political reasons. This sounds like a reasonable concern.
Can you imagine a realistic way around this issue?
The problem is the harder you try to imagine it, the less it looks like a better world.
Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy. Getting rid of a billboard for something I am never going to buy sounds great, but it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising. Even if there were some type of advertising that provided no benefit to any part of society, the restriction on the freedom to communicate those advertisements is something that harms all of us.
Sometimes the part of building a better world that takes the most effort is recognizing where we already have.
> Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy
I would argue that paid advertisement is a force distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able to buy you that power?
I mean most town squares have no restriction on using a megaphone, and yet town squares have not been drowned out and rendered useless by megaphones. Even if that did happen, it would be a very poor analogue to generic advertising which can not drown out conversation. At best it would be an argument against megaphones over a certain volume, ie certain methods of communication might be reasonable to restrict, but restricting the ideas that can be expressed by megaphone is indefensible.
> Why should money be able to buy you that power?
why shouldn't it?
If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.
4 replies →
> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising
and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who is drawing a revenue from it.
People who proclaim that doing XYZ to make the world better, is not really considering the entirety of the world - just their corner. To claim that it would make the world better, they must show evidence that it doesn't hurt somebody else (who just happens to be in a different tribe to the proposer).
But it’s kind of great for the upshot who can’t afford the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can.
And it’s kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds, thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who don’t have some eye soar blocking their view.
Your argument is basically that there are some people who benefit from advertising—I promise you anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.
2 replies →