Comment by cratermoon
2 months ago
> you are actually preventing people from doing something that is important and valuable to them.
There are many things individuals will consider "important and valuable to them" that are harmful to others. We prevent individuals from harming others for their own self-gain because that's what societies do.
This is an argument against people having rights at all. "Oh, you think you're entitled to X? Well, in certain scenarios, X might cause harm. You might use free speech to advocate for something bad, or leverage your immunity to unjust search & seizure to conceal evidence of a crime."
Consider that the author considers propaganda to be a form of advertising, and suggests we ban propaganda. Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant. This anti-propaganda law effectively would have to make it illegal to publish political opinion pieces. That would be absurdly draconian.
For the record, I'm strongly anti-advertising, but a complete ban on advertisement would be impossible to construct because you can't draw a sharp line between ads and free expression.
> Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant.
Actually (and hilariously) Fox News according to their own court filings do not publish news, they are an entertainment product.
And I say ironically because that's exactly the mechanism people are clamoring for in this discussion: it's the courts. Lawyers argue and courts eventually decide definitions all the time, because it's highly impractical to belabor and endlessly debate passing new laws because we don't have ironclad definitions in them beforehand.
If you want my humble opinion, in a legal/ban sense, I would define advertising as:
> Communicative material that is placed strategically by publishers or media for a price/by way of other agreement to drive awareness of products or services with the intent to generate attention and sales of said products or services.
Kudos for providing a somewhat sensible definition. This helps by addressing the free speech issues (at least to an extent^[1]), but I think there are other problems as well.
The economical fallout would be extensive. Google's and Meta's business model (and that of many others) would basically disappear overnight. While I'm not a fan of either, and think there should be much stricter regulation for (very large) tech-companies, this would make financing of a lot of important products infeasible. But not just in tech. Think about product placement in movies or television, banners in big sporting events etc. Who'd pay for that? The state? With whose money?
Also, it would make entering markets much harder, if you're not a household name already. If I read your definition correctly, you couldn't even give a complimentary account for your SaaS product to a reviewer ("by way of other agreement") to enable them to test your software (and hopefully write favorably about it if they're convinced). This would definitely hurt consumers.
I think you should be allowed to try to change minds. If anything, we should outlaw the massive tracking effort involved in advertising.
[1]: What about a political party publishing a newspaper and paying their staff? Is that okay? I could construct more examples, and life is even messier. On the other hand, I have to admit, that the focus on the payment aspect makes this much more palatable to me.
9 replies →
Advertisement is when the ad carrier receive money, goods, services, preference or other monetary equivalent. With this definition we may give a break to free expression of views.
> Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant.
That's not advertising by any standard, unless they're being paid by someone to do it (whether they currently are or not is irrelevant). Just because someone can benefit doesn't make it advertising/propaganda, it's about the whether the funding comes from someone who benefits from the particular content.
As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them.
> As another example, Good Mythical Morning and other YouTube shows frequently do product comparisons / tests. That clearly isn't advertising, unless the companies who make those product are sponsoring them.
Did the pay full retail price for the product or get a discount?
Did they get the product at release or in advance?
Did they get access to detailed specs or the people who built it?
Did they give feedback that went into the product?
Did they get a company/lab/event visit and some swag?
Did they get preferential access for the next product?
"Sponsoring" is just the most visible, clearly disclosed way to advertise in those. But fundamentally, getting and preserving access is immensely valuable and there may not be funds moving between the two groups.
None of us are completely unbiased. Getting those things disclosed would be a great improvement.
This is just benevolent authoritarianism (the most common form of government worldwide and historically).