Comment by scarface_74
2 months ago
How would you like the government deciding some cause they didn’t agree with is advertising?
If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion?
And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites?
I can give you a real world example. Florida requires age verification for porn sites. Sites not based in the US including the ones owned by MindGeek just ignored it.
> If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion?
A nonsensical argument. You might as well ask how "Oh yeah, you want to ban murder? Well how would you like it if conservative states say that abortion is murder, and killing negroes isn't? Clearly outlawing murder is unworkable."
Great job pointing out that laws can be misinterpreted by motivated judges, I guess we should get rid of all the laws then to make sure that doesn't happen.
Whether I commit murder is objective. Speech is always subjective.
Even if abortion is murder is objective based on the state laws. We see right now how government controlling speech that it doesn’t like is harmful.
Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily seeing the current abuses of power and how it is used to punish people the government doesn’t like.
We should limit the power of the government to only punishing things that infringe on our rights and our person.
> Whether I commit murder is objective.
There are many different ways humans can die and many different types of human involvement in sequence of events. This involvement is sometimes characterized as a causal contributor to death. Responsibility in a related death, is not objective. You are simply incorrect.
> Whether I commit murder is objective.
Homicide is objective. Murder is unlawful homicide and therefore subjective.
2 replies →
>Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power
I'm amazed people pretend like corporations having immense power isn't a problem at all. I want the government to reduce the power of corporations to invasively and pervasively manipulate me through intrusive advertisements.
I mean, roe v wade clearly shows it is not objective at all. There's always edge cases in life. Abortion aside, also consider the context of self defense vs. Meditated murder with a plan to hide the body.
>Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily s
Well we've done a horrible job self-regulating. This abuse of power also teaches us that ideas without enforcement is just daydreaming. If that all you wanted to do in this article, go ahead.
2 replies →
We can start by banning ads for products and services that cost money.
> And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites?
We just address the big platforms. No need to be exhaustive in the first attempt.
So you put American companies at a disadvantage and that means companies could just advertise on foreign websites. Are you going to block those websites? Again we see it happening today, the American porn websites are losing money to foreign websites owned by MindGeek.
Why wouldn’t the same happen to more mainstream sites.
Do we also ban Netflix and other streaming services from having an ad tier? Do we make all search engines and other content providers for pay?
How do broadcast companies make money without advertising? Do we want the government funding and controlling content?
American websites implement GDPR even though that's an EU law. Websites that are used across geopolitical boundaries will invariably follow US law. There will certainly be a few exceptions, but if the law is written like the GDPR, then they'd be illegally violating the law.
And services like Netflix losing an ad supported tier is just like... Netflix in 2021. I fail to see that as alarming.
4 replies →