The world would be a far better place if advertising were greatly restricted - not just because it's annoying and bad for privacy, but also because it's bad for economies. Advertising is why you could work hard at a career your whole life and make less money than Kim K would for farting into a walkie-talkie (or less theoretically, less money than Karl Lagerfeld's cat made for posing on car's dashboard), and it also fuels much of the IP industry's work-once-get-paid-forever business model. It should be restr
It should be restricted so greatly that it should probably be done on an allow-list basis of where and what is actually allowed, and anything else is banned.
I think you are describing censorship. Like democracy, advertising is the least worst option we have.
Great, more conservative think-tank material, at least it wasn't Jordan Peterson himself as I was expecting...we've already banned cigarette ads and ads for various illegal services in many places, and public advertising in a few, and society hasn't collapsed.
Sorry you didn't like the video! I wish you had responded to its content instead of ad hominem critiques though.
For those who didn't watch, the point is that democratic societies influence behavior by persuasion. How else should influence happen? Advertising is commercialized persuasion. It sucks, but banning advertising is basically censorship.
Regulating it is totally reasonable though! That covers the example of disallowing advertising illegal services.
Why is it censorship to regulate advertising in some ways and not others? Why doesn't disallowing advertising illegal services count as censorship? For that matter, why isn't disallowing the publication of child porn considered censorship? Assuming that all censorship is a self-evident ultimate evil and then branding any restrictions on information you don't like as censorship is a stupid argument.
Advertising should be greatly restricted (Score:5, Interesting)
The world would be a far better place if advertising were greatly restricted - not just because it's annoying and bad for privacy, but also because it's bad for economies. Advertising is why you could work hard at a career your whole life and make less money than Kim K would for farting into a walkie-talkie (or less theoretically, less money than Karl Lagerfeld's cat made for posing on car's dashboard), and it also fuels much of the IP industry's work-once-get-paid-forever business model. It should be restr
Re: (Score:2)
It should be restricted so greatly that it should probably be done on an allow-list basis of where and what is actually allowed, and anything else is banned.
I think you are describing censorship. Like democracy, advertising is the least worst option we have.
I like the explanation in this video (3 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Great, more conservative think-tank material, at least it wasn't Jordan Peterson himself as I was expecting...we've already banned cigarette ads and ads for various illegal services in many places, and public advertising in a few, and society hasn't collapsed.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry you didn't like the video! I wish you had responded to its content instead of ad hominem critiques though.
For those who didn't watch, the point is that democratic societies influence behavior by persuasion. How else should influence happen? Advertising is commercialized persuasion. It sucks, but banning advertising is basically censorship.
Regulating it is totally reasonable though! That covers the example of disallowing advertising illegal services.
Re:Advertising should be greatly restricted (Score:2)
Why is it censorship to regulate advertising in some ways and not others? Why doesn't disallowing advertising illegal services count as censorship? For that matter, why isn't disallowing the publication of child porn considered censorship? Assuming that all censorship is a self-evident ultimate evil and then branding any restrictions on information you don't like as censorship is a stupid argument.