This idea isn't uncommon because it's beyond the Overton window, it's uncommon because it is silly and unworkable.
* Total fantasy to think you wouldn't fall afoul of free speech, both legally (in the US) and morally.
In fact, the author touts as a benefit that you'd stop populists being able to talk to their audience. This is destroying the village of liberal democracy in order to save it!
* Absolutely zero thought has been given to how to police the boundaries. Giving a paid speech? Free gifts for influencers? Rewards for signing up a friend?
* Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what to buy. Advertising fulfils an important social role. Yes, I know it can be annoying/intrusive/creepy. "In our information-saturated world, ads manipulate, but they don't inform" is an evidence-free assertion.
* Banning billboards or other public advertising? Fine. Not new. Done all over the place for commonsensical reasons.
* Any article that talks about "blurry, “out-of-focus fascism”—that sense of discomfort that you feel but can't quite point out" is itself blurry and out-of focus, not to say absurd and hyperbolic. Calling a mild sense of psychological discomfort "fascism" is just embarrassing.
This begs the question: how could you reliably distinguish advertising from other forms of free speech?
The courts already distinguish "commercial speech" as a class of speech. Would we prevent all forms of commercial speech? What about a waiter asking you "would you like to try a rosé with that dish? It pairs very well together." Is that "advertising" that would need to be outlawed?
What about giving out free samples? Is that advertising, and thus should be illegal?
What about putting a sign up on your business that says the business name? Is that advertising?
I hate advertising and propaganda. But the hard part IMO is drawing the line. Where's the line?
Just from the headline alone: oh please dear god yes.
The internet became usable after implementing the Pi-Hole. So much noise, so much wasted bandwidth, so many unnecessary lookups, gone with a Raspberry Pi and a few packages.
While other commenters are getting into the technical weeds of things, the reality is that the OP is right. Ads don’t inform, they manipulate. They’re an abusive forced-marriage that we cannot withdraw from even with ad and script blockers, because so much of society is built upon the advertising sector that it’s impossible to fully escape them. People like the OP and us are mocked for moves to block billboards in space as being “alarmist” or out of touch, yet driving along any highway in the USA will bombard you with ads on billboards, on busses, on rideshares, on overly-large signs with glowing placards, in radio and television, on streaming providers who raise our rates on what used to be ad-free packages.
Advertising is cancer, and I’m tired of pretending it’s not. Let’s get rid of it.
Sao Paulo, Brazil, made outdoor advertising illegal. That worked out quite well.
The US used to forbid prescription drug advertising. That seemed to work.
Ads for liquor, marijuana, and gambling are prohibited in many jurisdictions.
The FCC once limited the number of minutes of ads per hour on the public airwaves. That limit was below 10% of air time in the 1960s.
The SEC used to limit ads for financial products to dull "tombstone" ads, which appeared mostly in the Wall Street Journal.
A useful restriction might be to make advertising non tax deductible as a business expense. That encourages putting value into cost of goods sold rather than marketing.
To go halfway to the extreme of this article, I think banning large-scale billboards in my city would make a big difference.
It feels like having a calmer public space is more in the public interest than reminding them to drink Miller Lite.
This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or practices in lobbying that are damaging to society, but lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.
Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.
In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.
Fantastic article, I particularly like the point about humanity being more or less ad-free for much of it existence. I was just thinking about absurdity of advertising yesterday. As a life-long football fan (not soccer ;)), I was always bothered by the slow creep-in of those silly, mindless pre- and post-game interviews they do with players and managers nowadays. In the two decades since this has been happening it never occurred to me why these were a thing, until yesterday. In a lead up to a minor game, of course there was an interview with one of the players. In front of one of those panels with repetitive ads for various businesses. As it happens to be the case every time for the last 20ish years. Of course! The interviewees are just providing the mindless content, while my mind absorbs the background ads! So obvious, but it never occurred to me even once. Ad industry is really a cancer on society.
Advertising has consequences, and I’m not a big fan of it, but it’s also a necessary evil.
It’s easy to dismiss advertising as just a profit engine for ad platforms, but that’s only part of the picture. At its best, advertising plays a meaningful role in solution and product discovery, especially for new or niche offerings that users wouldn’t encounter otherwise. It also promotes fairer market competition by giving smaller players a shot at visibility, and by making alternatives accessible to customers, without relying solely on monopolistic platforms or the randomness of word-of-mouth.
That said, today’s ad ecosystem is far from ideal - often opaque, invasive, and manipulative. Still, the underlying idea of advertising has real value. Fair advertising is a hard problem, and while reform is overdue, banning it outright would likely create even bigger ones.
In theory, I'm all for this. In practice, we have to take smaller steps towards this radical change and see how far we can actually get in real life.
In Norway, we have a total ban on advertising on certain products, like alcohol and tobacco. We also have strict laws regulating advertising towards children and political messaging on TV and radio.
There is only one problem; these laws where made before the digital age, so they have been sidelined. Political parties buy ads on Facebook and Insta like there is no tomorrow and children are constantly exposed to ads on social media. Only the ban on alcohol and tobacco is somewhat successful.
The right next move would be to ban peronalized ads (ie tracking of personal data). This is the one factor that has made the advertising industry (with Google and Meta at the top) go completely of the rails.
I had this idea before, but thinking about it, you very soon run into some pretty uncomfortable tradeoffs.
The internet would change fundamentally. The article lists social networks as things that would disappear, and good riddance, but we'd also lose (free) search engines.
Further, I'd argue that some forms of advertising are actually desirable. If I'm planning a vacation abroad, and want to make a reservation at a hotel, I'd typically go to booking.com or one of it's competitors. Those sites are pretty much 100% advertising, but how else am I gonna find a hotel on the other side of the planet, in a country I've never been before?
You also run into some tricky hairsplitting questions. Where do you draw the line on advertising? Are webshops allowed to list 3rd party products? Or is that advertising? I don't want to outlaw online shopping entirely, it's extremely handy! What about search engine results from those webshops? Free search engines will disappear, but let's say I have a paid account and search for "buy dell laptop". Are the results advertising? How do you differentiate and define the cases legally?
I think it's a good idea, but it's gonna be quite tricky to implement well. And executing this idea poorly is potentially quite bad.
Getting it implemented at all is going to be hard: even well executed, this idea is going to have a huge impact on the economy, and people are not going to like that. This idea would be good for democracy, but ironically democracy is not good for this idea.
But why? The whole premise seems wrong.
> The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear
No they wouldn't.. the business model would change. Facebook sells ads to businesses and entertainment to consumers. People still want to be entertained.
What about the positive effects from advertising? Many products which I never knew existed have gone on to improve my life.
To kill addictive digital content (especially those targeted at young people), just go after them directly. I agree the world will be a better place once we don't spend 10-16 years old online. But the advertising argument doesn't make any sense to me.
Advertising was originally illegal on the internet. It was for non-profit activities only (university and industrial research and educational activities). When the world wide web first deployed in 1989, web advertising was illegal. The rules changed some time in the early 1990's.
I do remember a major scandal that occurred in the 1980's when somebody posted an advertisement to usenet. At the time, there was a lot of online discussion about why this was prohibited. I looked this up, and found that the internet backbone (the NSFNET) was funded by the NSF, who enforced an acceptable-use policy, prohibiting Backbone use for purposes “not in support of research and education.” [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/253671.253741]
So yes, it's possible, because we already did it once.
Advertising is a tax on the rich.
It subsidizes basically all modern entertainment, from the filmmaking and sports industries (through TV Shows and sports broadcasts, respectively), to musicians and amateur filmmakers (through Spotify and Youtube).
The costs of advertising are ultimately passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices for products and services, not unlike a VAT or sales tax. Because rich people spend more money than the poor (citation needed), they end up paying a lot more of this "tax" while getting the same amount of entertainment for it.
Targeted advertising only exacerbated these dynamics. Because high-spenders are very desirable customers to have, companies can now demand more money for the ability to target them, which turns advertising from a linear to a progressive tax.
Advertising turned the internet into a sort of public commons, with no government intervention and the inevitable inefficiencies and inflexibilities that come with those. It gave us free, high-quality video and voice calls to anywhere across the world, free unlimited texting, including picture messaging and group conversations, free video hosting for everybody, regardless of scale, free music (through Youtube, Spotify and the radio), with at least some compensation to artists, free movies and TV shows (on free-to-air TV as well as through services like Pluto), excellent free educational content (e.g. 3b1b, university lecturers hosted on Youtube at no charge), as well as cheaper entertainment overall through ad-supported tiers.
I think framing things this way is important when discussing advertising regulation. Maybe we want more cheap groceries, don't care about cheaper luxury cars and don't mind less free entertainment, so maybe we should ban grocery ads and encourage more Mercedes ads. Maybe we're fine with less free entertainment if it gets us fewer alcoholics, so we ban ads for alcohol. Those are tradeoffs worth thinking about, perhaps tradeoffs worth making, but they are tradeoffs, and it is important to be conscious of that.
I find it ironic that there's a big "Follow @index@simone.org via your Fediverse account (like...)" over this article that I can't seem to close and covers up part of the article.
I use ublock origin on Firefox and next dns on my router with a block list. I pay for ad free YouTube. My kids had a lesson in how annoying commercials are during a trip where they tried to watch a BBC animal documentary and had to see the same commercial five times in a row because I guess not enough advertisers signed up with the provider. I don't like billboards. I'm pretty sympathetic to getting rid of advertising and do so as much as possible in my own life.
That said this article glosses over the first amendment which absolutely needs to be considered because (at least in the United States) that is the big barrier to any sort of restriction.
Also the idea of what constitutes an ad. Billboards? What about large signs showing where a store is? Are people with big social media accounts allowed to tell us about their favorite products? Only if they don't get money? What if they get free products? We'll have financial audits I assume to make sure they aren't being sneaky. No more sponsored videos? What about listing the patreons that made the video possible?
How will this be sold to the people that need ads for their small business? We'll need a majority support to pass a constitutional amendment.
Anyway, this seems impossible but good luck!
The thing that really irks me is celebrity endorsements.
Tell me, do you think Roger Federer really appreciates that watch he's selling you? Does he really use that coffee machine that he sells, and thinks it's the best one?
We know what his motivation is, he is not your friend who bought a watch and a coffee machine, used them, and recommended them to you. He gets paid by the producers of the stuff he endorses.
Plainly, advertisers have discovered a loophole in the human psyche, and are exploiting it. We evolved to take in recommendations from people we know, and billboards/TV/etc are close enough to the real thing to trigger _something_ in us that doesn't just work when it's a non-celebrity whose face we don't know. The effect is big enough that celebrities get paid a gigantic amount of money to pretend they are someone you trust and recommend some product they never even thought about until they got given the deal.
I think we should tax that kind of thing. I'm not restricting his free speech. Roger is free to stand in front of the opera in ZĂĽrich and tell random strangers that they should buy the coffee machine. But if you put it in mass media, there should be a gigantic tax.
People will hate me for saying this, but when people want to ban advertising they fail to realize how much utility they actually get from advertising when it is done in a straightforward, ethical way. At the core, advertising and advertisements are a way to inform potential customers of a product or service that they might like. A few points for consideration:
1. You probably only know about half the things you like, enjoy, and use because of advertising. Did you see a trailer for a movie on YouTube you wanted to watch? That is an ad for a movie. Did you get a demo disc for a new band at a party or club in the 90s? That is an ad. Did you see the concert lineup poster? Ad. No one complains when advertising is done well and provides utility.
2. Ads subsidize things you enjoy. Browsers, search engines, television, your tv, most websites, are all subsidized through advertising. You can say would prefer to just pay full price for it and avoid the ads, but most people clearly would not like to when given the option.
3. What even is an ad? What is the line? Are store signs an ad? Are movie trailers? Defining what an ad is and isn’t is messy and a bit silly.
4. The alternative may be worse. What happens when traditional ads stop working? Businesses still need to get their message out, so what do they do? They hire YouTubers to play talk positively about their product, they wine and dine journalists and publications for favorable coverage, which becomes easy because without ads they are hurting for revenue. If ads were banned this would get worse.
It is nice to opine about a utopia without ads, and believe me, I often do, but the reality is advertising has been around for thousands of years and integral to how business and even society works.
If you are a new company starting out (suppose aluminum siding), you have to market your product or else nobody will know about it. I'm not sure what all parts of marketing are counted as advertising here, but generally in marketing you pay to get word out about your product. Wihtout that, starting a business might be tough. And then, as a consumer, there are lots of free products I have gotten my entire life by virtue of the fact that one of those companies offered to pay for it for me. If you turn that off I'm not sure how that all would work. I don't think the OP goes into too much detail.
Better would be to make targeted advertising unprofitable. This could be done by requiring data retention to be accounted for as a liability on the balance sheet.
E.g. If a business want to run an ad in the newspaper, go for it. But if they want to follow me around on the internet and collect information on everything that I do, then they should be required to record what they collect. Congress could then vote to make laws introducing taxes on that quantity.
Once this stuff is measured then appropriate counter measures could be taken to discourage socially damaging enterprises.
The issue is that if you ban advertising, we still get advertising, but it'll be done in a way that hides that it is an advertisement. Aka, the internet will be full of bot posts that are thinly veiled ads posing as legitimate inquiry or discussion. That's a worse off scenario. Better the enemy you know.
Some countries (Poland?) has experimented with banning advertising in public spaces. Think bill boards. This has lead to very clean and good looking cities. I don’t think the it’s unreasonable to ban ads in other places too.
So some of the most critical public goods of our age, which are currently mostly ad-funded, like web search, video hosting, email hosting, smartphone navigation, etc. would become publicly funded? Great, I'd like to live in that world too. But this article says nothing about how to get there (actually it considers the demise of Google et al to be an argument in favor without even considering the fact that in the absence of advertising, Google's services would need to be either restricted to those who could afford them or taken over by the government).
Advertising certainly has plenty of negative externalities, but the positive externalities of the free ad-funded services I mentioned are absolutely mind-boggling. Try to imagine living without them (if you couldn't afford to pay for them yourself).
I think taxing ad revenue and investing the proceeds in research and social programs is the middle path
Thought about that years back, and went to the conclusion that you can't kill advertising and political propaganda without strict rules that every big business and their owned politicians would fiercely fight against. Also, advertising is the way they keep barely alive an economic system almost entirely based on overproduction of unnecessary goods built to not be durable; take out advertising and you'll see millions of people bankrupt; not thousands: millions. Advertising doesn't scale anymore: from a handy tool to discreetly let people two blocks away that a new barber shop just opened, has transitioned to a weapon businesses use to fit their product between a thousand others, grabbing more and more space from every free second or square millimeter, in the hope they capture the attention of someone who doesn't give a damn about them; and it can only get worse. I'm all for killing it, but be warned that if you take it out, you take out the entire business universe built around it that depends on it to be kept afloat. It'd probably need a few decades, not even years, to become reality if someone decided to start the process in a harmless way. But would first need a very different political environment to be accepted: more power to the state, less to corporations, and probably that would conflict with ideas that some propaganda, that is, advertising, stuck in the mind of so many people several decades ago, and those are quite hard to undo.
Maybe a good initial step would be to tighten up false advertising laws:
Make it illegal to make statements that are not objectively true. E.g. you can't say that your product is "the best", you can only say specifically how it is better.
Put restrictions on advertising an idealized version of a product and then selling a lesser version. E.g. the difference between what fast food ads show versus what you get. I'm sure it would be difficult to completely fix that since it's so subjective, but we could probably get incremental improvements.
> But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence.
But humanity has never been free of non-current forms of advertising
> The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear
No the wouldn't, you can still monetize addictive without ads
> Think about what's happened since 2016 ... fracture our social fabric along existing fault lines.
Just think about what happened before 2016 and how many times the social fabric had been fractured (sometimes also with foreign actors) ...
I suspect this proposal wouldn’t be met well. Ignore the pachyderm in the shared living space (all the lovely money people make from advertising), but defining “what’s an ad” gets sticky.
For example, highly relevant PSAs and warnings could be considered “ads.” They can be every bit as obnoxious as “penis pill” ads, but they convey information that may be of life and death importance.
The placards outside professional offices are ads; possibly the oldest form of advertising.
In-store signage are ads, and can cost sellers a lot of money.
You could argue that “shelf-stackers,” and “endcap displays” employed by supermarkets, are a form of advertising.
Sales people rely on personal relationships, and get quite skilled at making every conversation they have, into a sales pitch (which can get annoying).
Promotion is a very complex system, and often goes far beyond simple signage. For many businesses, it’s a matter of life and death.
People that run businesses probably can’t live without them, and are willing to pay a pretty penny for ads.
One thing that might be relevant, are “ad books,” like the old-fashioned Yellow Pages, “pennysaver” papers, or the “brand books,” used by designers. These are ads, but gathered into a place where they are expected, and actively sought out.
In the last century, we often called variants of these, “catalogs.”
Silly idea. Some advertising is bad. Some is really bad. Other advertising is useful. I wouldn't know about half the gigs or exhibitions I go to and enjoy if it weren't for the advertisements throughout the city. There are many small local businesses I wouldn't know about (to my detriment) if it weren't for advertising. The internet as we know it never would have been built if it weren't for advertising.
But there is a certain kind of advertising that is detrimental. My first thought is Amazon 'sponsored' products. Allowing companies to pay money to put inferior products at the top of search results is bad for society. Same goes for Google sponsored search results. Sponsored content in general is terrible. People that have gained your trust selling you things and not actually telling you they are being paid to do so. There are many many digital ads that would not be allowed IRL because they would be stopped for false advertising by regulators.
Like most things in life these days, the problem is not the thing itself. The problem is the Wild West that is the internet where there is minimal regulation allowing people to lie, cheat and get away with it.
What if we built a strong culture around actively avoiding advertising? What if we educated the general public about adverse effects of time after time giving up your attention, without getting anything in return besides a short lived dophamine kick? What if we showed how it's only in those moments of paying attention a person has a chance to exercise agency over their own life, and spending that scarce resource on doomscrolling is a catastrophic-group-mind-suicide, sadistically prolonged over the lifetime of an entire generation? That the illusion of community in the comments is just that, an illusion that dispels the moment the user clicks the dreaded "logout" button spitting them back into a gray heroine-withdrawal-like reality, isolated from their peers, all means of human connection monopolized by the attention sharecropping farms? That every moment a jingle on the radio captures your mind it's distracting you from something necessarily more important? That we are all in effect trapped in that externally-perpetuated procrastination loop, with all the neon-lit arrows pointing us further and further away from what truly matters -- our very lives?
Stay away from the algorithmic feeds, instead get to know your authors and choose them explicitly. Stay away from the personalized ads, pay for content you care about, block what can be blocked, avoid the rest. Learn active banner blindness: catch your attention drifting and look away. Uninstall reels, tiktok, youtube, sanitize your life from short term attention grabbers. Turn off that TV. Mute your car radio. Practice focus: take a book and set a timer. Lock yourself up in a room with a hobby project. Meditate. Set up a ritual with a friend or family, as long as you still got any. Make smalltalk to strangers. Get to know your neighbors. Plan that getaway. Choose your life!
Let's start with banning the sharing/selling of customer data, tracking data, or anything else that can be aggregated to form some idea of a targetable resource.
That would shed some initial societal parasites. See what's left, and then go after the next biggest / grossest topic in the space.
I could get behind that particular brandishing of chainsaw.
It's a solid idea, and could even fall under 'anti-spam laws' with some additional clauses. There should be a daily or monthly limit on the max number of people that a person or entity can contact or send unsolicited content to... Maybe like 100 people per day on average. That's more than enough for anyone to make a living as a sales person.
Big tech has been mass-spamming us with unsolicited content for decades and driving monopolization, centralizing opportunities towards those who can talk the talk and away from those who can walk the walk. So we've been getting lower value for our money and also losing jobs/opportunities which has made it harder to earn money.
It's crazy that big tech is allowed to spam hundreds of millions of people with unsolicited content but if any individual did it on the same scale, they'd be in jail.
Define advertising. Studies suggest that as much as 80% of news articles may have been placed by PR firms rather than generated through independent reporting. This forum is a classic case where blog posts are masquerading as authentic content, when in reality, they're simply another form of advertising.
Anecdotally, my QoL has gotten much better once I made a conscious attempt to avoid being fed advertisements. I’ve stopped using social media and pay for YouTube premium. It’s night and day difference in terms of my purchase patterns and overall level of happiness with the things I currently have.
I have mixed feelings about advertising. Small businesses definitely need advertising to at least compete with the bigger guys, but online platforms such as Google and Facebook are simply landlords in the electronics age. Microsoft too, with its "monopoly" of desktop OS and how it tries to force ads down our throats.
I feel it's impossible to get rid of those Ads platforms such as Google or Microsoft. Businesses need them. If you ask me, I'd say, government should levy a heavy tax on Ads , so basically like gas stations, they are only allowed say 10% of profit margin, and they must cap their ads somehow. Ads is basically a public service, and every public service, if not run by the State, should only allow a very small margin of profit, like public transit and such.
I'm so happy to read this, I've been thinking about this question for a while now, and I think it would help a lot:
Big companies where revenues are based on marketing would collapse, the market fragments (which is good), smaller companies are created instead, better diversity of local products and services. Better wealth distribution. More money for the government, hopefully better public services.
With less flashy products and services, people have a better purchasing power, even considering they'll have to pay for services they use, like reviews. Review companies would need strict controls to be put in place against corruption.
It would probably also change a lot of nonsensical landscapes (ex: sports)
Advertising is evil.
If ads just vanished, that would be great, but making it illegal ought to do more harm than good. For one, a lot of ad money would be routed to shills, which are far more pernicious and have already infested otherwise great platforms like Reddit. Everything would turn to crap and no adblocker would help you. An ad ban would make every influencer profile instantly worthless, unless they decide to shill, which they're probably already doing anyway.
Also big tech would be incentivized to sell even more user data, as their business would still mostly exist, either via subscriptions, or through the now even more profitable user data market with more expensive targeted shilling.
> It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public discourse.
IIRC there is a Dilbert comic strip about that.
> Clickbait [...] would become worthless overnight
Advertisement is not the only incentive. E.g., the Veritasium YouTube channel's host explicitly switched to clickbait, explaining it by his intent to reach a wider audience. Another example is clickbait submission titles on HN, not all of which are for the sake of advertisement (unless you count HN submissions in general as advertisements themselves, of course).
> When I say advertising, I also mean propaganda. Propaganda is advertising for the state
Not necessarily for the state, the usual definition includes furthering of ideas in general. In more oppressive regimes, propaganda of certain ideas is actually banned, as it used to be in even more places ("heresy" and suchlike). Combined with selective enforcement, it is as good as banning all propaganda. It may be a particularly bad example of such a ban, but still an illustration of the dangers around it.
I think a better path towards the world without (or almost without) commercial advertising is not via coercion, but as kaponkotrok mentioned in another comment, via education and public discussion (which may also be called "propaganda"), shifting social norms to make such advertisement less acceptable. People can make advertisements unprofitable if they will choose to: not just by ignoring them (including setting ad blockers), but also by intentionally preferring products not connected to unpleasant and shady tactics, including those beyond advertisement: slave labor and other human rights violations, unsustainable energy sources, global warming, animal cruelty, monopolies, proprietary or bloated software and hardware are some of the common examples. Social norms and such enforcement seem to be less brittle than laws are, and harder to turn into an oppression mechanism.
Although, since I brought up monopolies and other issues, perhaps state agencies may also usefully assist with restriction of advertisement, as they do with those. Social norms and laws are not mutually exclusive, after all.
This is a really interesting question.
Some thought experiments:
What do [search engines, social networks, newspapers] look like? I assume they'd all be paid and you'd get some free tastes and then decide which you'd pay for in the long term (Ă la kagi).
By removing the third party payer, the service provider has no incentive to do anything for them, whether aligned or not with the user. That is the big plus.
What about all the money that companies use to promote their products and services through advertisements and marketing? Some portion of that would probably go to making their products better. The rest... from their standpoint, how do they even get a potential customer to know they exist? That's tough.
You can already block 99% of ads on devices you own. I haven't seen an internet ad in ages. I forget that websites have them.
That said, I don't think it's appropriate to outlaw all advertising. It should still be allowed in places where you'd be open to it anyway: in stores and other places where you spend money anyway, and in specialized publications that exist for people who intentionally want to be advertised to.
However, for when you're buying something, upselling (any questions by the seller that may result in you buying something you didn't intend to buy originally) should be illegal. It feels very insulting to me.
I’m not convinced by the argument that it shouldn’t be considered free speech. What exactly we mean by a private place… I dunno, but I definitely feel like I’m “going to” content, even if it is just digitally, when I’m on a phone. So, it doesn’t feel like they are invading my privacy. It is an annoying person in public, usually protected unless they are violent.
In terms of “let’s try this surprising new change in the laws,” I’d rather see it become illegal to collect a lot of information about people. Maybe we can consider what Facebook/Google and data brokers do something like stalking.
The biggest TV event of the year in the US is the Super Bowl, and a big part of the event that people look forward to is advertising. Ad spots during the Super Bowl are famously expensive (like millions of dollars for a 30 second ad), and advertisers try really hard to make funny or memorable ads. There are lots people who don’t care about football and watch just to see the ads.
The best ads and brands are an iconic part of our culture - something cherished and celebrated by many. I think this is worth keeping in mind at least when talking about banning advertisements.
Google was initially incredibly useful because it ranked pages created by people who were largely not motivated by advertising using an algorithm that didn't allow you to pay for placement. Now both the content and the algorithm have been heavily co-opted and so people are turning to 'AI' half technological wonder and half merely just returning to unbiased relevance based responses to user queries. At least until that too starts to replace relevance with paid advertising in its responses and the cycle will start anew.
It is an interesting thought. What could be new business models for sites that currently rely on third party advertising? It seems big publishers are increasingly moving to first party advertising. But that seems difficult for small publishers.
While advertising messages may not be themselves particularly important for free speech and can be even detrimental to it, e.g., propaganda, sites themselves disseminate speech and are often third-party ad-financed. What could be a good business model for them (other than direct payments)?
Unfortunately, the next question becomes “is consumer reports considered an ad” etc.
It becomes a question of what truly is an ad?
That said I appreciate this sort of thought; it would even be nice for it to be implemented, but whether it could be enforced is another question. At that point it then becomes a question of who you allow to advertise.
For a long time, hedge funds were not allowed to solicit investments publicly under rule 502c of reg D.
I could see grounds to restrict things further; I’m sick of restless leg syndrome drug treatment ads…
I really dislike the impulse to ban things we don't like.
Of course, a ban on advertising will never happen, because it's very useful to some people. I'm more concerned with the general pattern of thinking that goes:
1. I greatly dislike thing and think thing is bad. 2. Thing should therefore be illegal.
We should be less eager to use the power of law to mold the world to our preferences. It should be a solemn undertaking to use the law! It's an instrument of coercive power and should really be held in reserve as much as possible. Otherwise, we're all just petty tyrants sniping one another for minor transgressions.
There are many things that are very bad that nonetheless must be legal in a free society! I realize this is a uniquely American right, but I nonetheless believe "hate speech" must remain legal. It is bad, yes. I do not like it. I really wish it didn't happen. However, it is markedly less bad than entrusting some byzantine bureaucracy or benevolent dictator to adjudicate the meaning of hate speech. I greatly prefer a world with hate speech to one in which we apply legal authority to eliminate hate speech.
Some years ago, at the height of the Augmented Reality bubble, I had a hackathon idea about smart sunglasses that would replace any detected poster and billboard with information of your choosing - your favorite art, personal photos, notifications about upcoming alarms.
I am no longer into hackathons, but I would pay good money for such a product. Bonus points if it is styled like Nada's glasses from They Live.
The buried lede:
```Populists exploit ad marketplaces, using them to bypass traditional media gatekeepers```
I want to believe that the author is hopelessly naive, and not a more nefarious actor. These traditional media gatekeepers are not by any means friendly to democracy; they're literal tools of the state, and actively work against the interests of the populace. I say this without a hint of irony: I trust social media more.
As someone who's worked in marketing for 15 years - across big agencies in New York and running growth for startups - there's an uncomfortable truth to this piece. The industry has quietly become something darker than when I joined.
Modern advertising doesn't just sell products, it sells our own attention back to us at a premium. What started as "connecting products to people who need them" has warped into engineering digital environments that hack our baseline neurological responses.
The most disturbing part is that most people inside the machine know it. I've sat in rooms where we've explicitly designed systems to maximize "time on site" by exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities. The language we use internally is more clinical than predatory, which makes it easy to avoid moral questions.
What's wild is how this piece frames advertising as a relatively recent phenomenon. It's right - for 99% of human history, we made purchasing decisions based on community knowledge and direct information, not carefully engineered psychological triggers that follow us around.
Sure, banning all advertising sounds extreme, but it's worth asking: what would we actually lose? Product information would still exist. Reviews would still exist. Word-of-mouth would still exist. We'd just lose the sophisticated machinery designed to bypass our rational decision-making.
The "free speech" counter-argument has always struck me as disingenuous. Nobody believes they have a constitutional right to interrupt your dinner with a telemarketing call.
It's interesting, I have been saying a much less intelligible version of this from observing my children. They have been exposed to services without advertising, and as soon as they see an ad... "Another commercial!!!". A part of me hopes their entire generation can develop a disdain for advertising based on the negatives they can see in their parents.
You don't need to ban it, you need to find mechanism to prevent the worst effects.
In civilized countries, this could be done by taxation (limit the mass) and regulation (limit the excesses.)
Use the country of the advertisment target audience to decide which juridiction applies.
I'm pretty sure advertisers have to be aware of the country their targeting, given that they know me better than my spouse.
What annoys me the most are advertised contracts like "Only 9.99€ per month*"
* First 3 months 9.99€, 42.99€ per month thereafter, 1 year minimum
The problem is that, as the article mentions, there are "good" forms of advertising that are actually meant to inform people. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority, and even more so in "high-end" advertising, is not that. So, the question is how can we distinguish the good from the bad?
One of the key distinguishing factors is that "bad" advertising is intentionally deceptive. The explicit objective is how to overstate colloquially while technically saying something that is not untrue if interpreted by a genie or monkey's paw. Advertisers run war rooms and focus groups to make sure that the message they are promoting is verifiably and scientifically misinterpreted by the target audience while having legal review so that if it comes to court they can say: "Technically, your honor..." we meant something different than what we explicitly and intentionally aimed for.
The standard is backwards. The more money you spend on advertising, the more intentionally truthful it should be. You should run focus groups to verify that the message is not misinterpreted to your benefit the larger the advertising campaign. When you go to court and say: "Technically, your honor..." you should immediately lose (after reaching certain scales of advertising where you can be expected to have the resources to review your statements). Misinterpretation should be a honest surprise occurring despite your best efforts, not because of them and the litmus test should be if your efforts were reasonable at your scale to avoid such defective speech.
The standard is trivially assessable in court: Present the message to the target audience and ask them their interpretation. Compare it to the claims of deception. If the lawyer says: "Technically, your honor..." they lose. However, they can present evidence that they made reasonable efforts to avoid misinterpretation and that the specific form of the misinterpretation is unlikely or unexpected.
The standard is easily achieved by businesses. Make intentionally truthful claims and have your advertising teams check and test for misinterpretation. Err on the side of caution and do not overstate your claims to your benefit and the potential detriment of your customers. If you think "technically speaking", you are on the wrong track. If you would not tell that candidly to your relatives or friends, you should probably stop.
It is not like people do not know they are being deceptive, they just need to be held to it.
Almost every single time speech is limited someone finds a way to weaponize that limitation.
In most jurisdictions there are, at times weaponized, limitations, and that's the tradeoff those jurisdiction landed on.
I don't see how this proposed limitation could produce acceptable weaponizations.
Just think for a second how outlandish these would sound with such limitation in place:
- The ban on "persuasive content" is used to shut down political dissent labeled as "unwanted influence."
- Independent journalists are silenced when their reporting is categorized as "promotional advertising."
- Fundraising for humanitarian causes is outlawed as "solicitation advertising."
- Religious discussions are prohibited as "advertising spiritual beliefs" or "donation to the organized religion."
- Medical awareness campaigns are shut down as "advertising health concerns."
- Environmental activism is criminalized as "advertising eco-agendas."
There would be just no end of these.
Find a major metropolitan newspaper from 1990. Print would be best, so that you can feel the heft. Now compare it to the same newspaper (if it exists) today. Print advertising did not become illegal, just uneconomical. Now consider what happens to the entities that now run on advertising. Do they survive?
Economist here. My biggest issue is with the “news” industry.
Companies provide what the customer wants. And, as the adage goes, if you’re not paying, you’re not the customer, you’re the product. Advertisement-funded “news” isn’t meant to enrich the reader/viewer — it is meant to attract the reader/viewer.
I think that perverted incentive has always existed with it, but the internet ad technology has really killed the information content. And now we’re have society-scale problems with misinformed citizens.
I don’t think industry will solve the problem. If a company allowed users to opt out and pay, their richest customers would do that and those were the ones most valuable to advertise to. So, offering an opt-out probably loses them money (and increases costs).
I think the news industry should be advertising free. I’d have to think on if it should also have govt funding, but that often gets co-opted.
Says the person paying a provider to get their voice out there to make themselves look better or influence the world.
Advertising is a broad thing, which may include:
- Job offers
- Jobseeking
- Dating
- Public service announcements
- Word-of-mouth
- Sponsoring
- Political campaigns
- Fundraisers
- Endorsements
- Recommendations
And many others
If you ban all forms of advertising, society will grind to a halt, even before considering free speech. How can a business be successful if no one knows that it exists? Advertising connects people who need something to people who provide it. It absolutely essential to society and in a sense, it predates humans, if we consider mating as a form of advertising, like peacocks using their tails as some kind of a biological billboard.
I understand what the author means, he is annoyed by ad breaks, banners, and tracking, we all are, and he would like to see less of them, we all do, except whoever makes money over these banners that is.
The author suggests banning paid-for advertisement. But how far will it go? For example, you want to print flyers to promote your business. Is it illegal for the print shop to print your flyers, as they are making money on advertising. Classified ads will become illegal too, forget about craigslist and the likes.
It kinds of remind me of some "abolitionist" laws on prostitution that some countries have. Prostitution is legal, based on the idea that people own their bodies and people have the right to have sex, but everything surrounding prostitution is not, including advertising and pimping. The definition for pimping can go far, for example renting a room to a prostitute can be considered pimping. The idea is essentially to make prostitution illegal without writing it explicitly. A blanket ban on advertising will do that, but for all businesses.
As always, for every complex problem there is a solution which is clear, simple and wrong.
I think he missed one of the use cases for advertising: providing “free” services to people in the “third world”. I come from west Africa, majority of people can’t afford to pay for Facebook, YouTube, whatsapp etc even though these are their main means of communications. Even if they could afford it (“just a few cents is nothing” to us on here - to these people that’s how much they make in a day), they don’t use traditional banking services and certainly not access to credit and debit cards to make payments. I hate ads too, for all the reasons mentioned in the article. But I don’t see a feasible way to make these services available for the 1 billion plus people I’m describing. Open to ideas.
In France, I had watched a video on the subject more than 10 years ago, and since then I have been in favor of banning all forms of advertising, including and especially IRL in the streets. I've been using an adblocker on each of my devices ever since I saw that video, and I no longer see any ads (I use ReVanced etc. for X, YouTube, etc.), except unfortunately in real life since there are still ads in the streets, but at least from an activist standpoint, the online advertising industry should take a hit.
If any French speakers are interested, I believe it was this YouTube channel (which is very interesting anyway for discussions about fascism, advertising, manipulation, etc.): https://youtube.com/@hacking-social
I don't have to imagine it at least on the internet - I've been blocking all ads on all my devices very successfully since 1999. In fact now I can't stand having to look at or use anyone else's computer or smartphone (usually when they ask for free tech support).
IMO advertising itself is ok, if not targeted by profiling user. I'm reading about bikes and I'm offered a bike or helmet? Fine by me.
Problem starts, when I'm scrolling $socialWebsite and I see ton of biking ads, because some Orwellian ad network is tracking me through time & space.
Then content starts to serve as means to push ads into my eyes whenever I dare to open them. If content is crap - doesn't matter - if I switch to other source ad will follow.
What's worse - many people were brainwashed into believing that's normal. I remember guy from Chrome team, who published draft for web attestation. He was convinced he's doing good thing because brands have "right" to be sure they're getting real eyeballs and he was just making this process "better" for the users.
One of the things that bothers me most about advertising is that we sell attention to the highest bidder. It happened before online ads too but online ad networks 'perfected' the bidding process. And I say this as someone who's made much of my wealth indirectly off of such ad networks.
It means the expensive product/service gets your attention, coz it can afford a higher bid, instead of the one that's better for you. It also sets a high floor on prices.
To some extent the bidding process was needed when there was inherent scarcity of inventory to place information (e.g. billboards or the 1 local radio station), but there's no scarcity online. Why can't we just have a web where product/service info is listed, and people can seek that info through some search engine?
For me personally advertising doesn't work. I've never bought or done anything because of an advert. If all ads stopped tomorrow nothing would change for me. Advertising clearly works out it wouldn't be such a big industry, I just don't get it though.
This idea immediately reminded me of “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” by James Tiptree
Here's another thought: I just wish more businesses had some class. Maybe your logo and product doesn't need to be smeared across every inch of physical and digital real estate. I realize the article is focused on digital advertising, but for example, am I really inclined to buy life insurance from the guy whose face is on the back of the shopping cart? NIL has ruined college sports and at its heart it's about being able to slap a logo on the back of a college kid. Prudent to say, gee, maybe there are more tasteful ways to get the message out to the world about our produce or service would be a nice thing.
You can ban specific forms of advertising. But the general form is too vague, too easy to hide.
Movies set in our world, for example, should be allowed to show real cars, real phones, etc. But that is nigh impossible to prevent from becoming a fight for getting your product placed. And lots of similar places.
It might be possible to outlaw ads targeted more narrowly than a bit of content (i.e. advertisers have to choose, ahead of publication, what content to put their ads next to.) Combining this with banning some of the more direct advertising might work. Though perhaps a world where advertising is purely done through product placement is also horribly distopian.
It's fun thought, but probably also scary one.
The we have any robustness towards propaganda/ads is that we're being bombarded with contradicting arguments.
In a society without would be more susceptible to propaganda. Just just we outlaw it, just doesn't stop bad actors.
That there are lots of places we forbid advertising. Bill boards along the road. Content targeted minors.
We are also lots of advertising we could outlaw: regulated medicin, loans, gambling.
We could regulate what ads can say: products must be sold advertised price (fine print not allowed).
Lots of things could we that don't outlaw all advertising. Look around world you'll find many examples such regulations.
As ads are getting crammed into more and more aspects of our lives both online and offline, what I find particularly creepy is there's been a push by advertisers and tech companies to normalize these practices to upcoming generations. It seems like we're getting pushed towards the status quo of Futurama where we'll have ads broadcast into our dreams... As is the case with idiocracy, that wasn't an instruction manaul. I can only hope we can push the Overton window back to a place where limitatons on advertising can at least be considered.
I've been saying this for years. It would be great to make advertising illegal.
Advertising is just psychological manipulation. Any argument that there's "good" advertising that respects the target and is merely informative... well, maybe there is, but it's overshadowed by the other 99.9% of the garbage.
Implementing this feels impossible, though. There would be disagreement as to what constitutes an ad. I disagree with the author that advertising isn't an exercise of free speech; I think that would be a huge roadblock in any country that enshrines free speech rights.
But man, that would be great.
The global economy would fracture, is what would happen. A good chunk of the top performing stocks would disappear, affecting banking, retirement, housing, just everything. Most of the communication channels people use today would disappear. The online tools even non-ad-businesses use to function would stop, so those businesses would grind to a halt. News would disappear. Products would stop getting made. (US) Politicians would freak the hell out because now they don't know how to get elected. It would be a categorical economic and social disaster.
I think about this a lot. Consider the difference between the tidy signage of Tokyo versus the pell-mell streetfronts of Hong Hong. Societies should be able to choose how businesses impinge the public space.
The sadest part is that we the consumers pay for having things constantly popping up infront of our eyes. There should be a ”NoAds”-label on products that have chosen to not levy the ad-tax on us consumers.
For so many comments in this thread saying that it’s impossible to make all advertising illegal, we can certainly start with making personalised advertising illegal with all its invasive practices.
Nice idea but so utterly unenforceable. If you want to look at challenges around regulating advertising, the ASA in the UK is an interesting case, as when being set up in the 60s, they foresaw many of the difficulties and structured themselves to minimise them. If you're overly specific, people look for loopholes, so they focused on the spirit and they also went with a strong element of self-regulation whilst still having teeth where necessary. Even so, in the modern world, the internet spanning jurisdictions makes it all very hard to deal with.
> But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence
The key word here is "current forms of advertising". Advertising as a concept has been around since the invention of commerce and trade, so pretty much since the beginning of human civilization.
So sure, you can have specific issues with browser popups or data collection or billboards or whatever else, but saying "any form of paid and/or third-party advertising" should be illegal is nonsensical. Unless you can make money and trade illegal advertising will continue to exist.
As someone who grew up in the state of Vermont, where billboards have been outlawed since the 60’s, this feels do-able. It is also such a high leverage change that I’m going to keep thinking about this.
I think Bill Hicks had something to say about this once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY
I have seen it suggested before, but not for a long time. Things have become even worse since then. What I saw suggested was to ban all forms of marketing, not just advertising. The argument was that it exists purely to mislead consumers rather than inform consumers which is vitally important for a free market to function. So that means standardised plain box packaging, for example. Companies like Apple would have to display the features that matter, like battery life, rather than hide behind clever marketing.
I really like the idea. Fuck advertising.
There's much discussion about what constitutes advertising in the comments, with some dismissing this question as either solved or not crucial. Note however that seriously banning advertising requires a clear definition of it.
My 2 cents: Ban payed advertising online, including banner ads, search ads, and pre-roll / inter-roll ads (e.g. youtube and instagram).
This is a clearly defined market and probably causes a plurality of the negative impact of adverts (especially when connected with the incentive to algorithmically addict users to show them more ads).
Norman Mailer once suggested that advertising just be heavily taxed.
Since its positive impact on society is limited, this would be a way to channel some of that mind-warping wealth into actual civic improvement...
I'm against advertising that presents a simplistic, beautiful world — in other words, manipulative advertising. Which is basically all advertising currently. Nevertheless, there must be ways for producers to communicate the existence of their product and its advantages to the consumers. Comparable to how programmers put links to their projects here. How do you inform potential car buyers that you have built a car that consumes one liter less gasoline and travels 25 km/h faster, if you are not allowed to advertise?
Does anyone with a brain think ads inform? I'm not sure they ever did. The real issue here is that there's never going to be political will for this. Advertising and propaganda are the same yes. Lobbying is closely related. Banning anything for the good of the people or society is anathema to the current crop of politicians. Even if that wasn't the case, anyone putting this forward as a policy would find themselves running against an extremely well funded opponent with the backing of a lot of the media.
Most people who protest oil use cars, roads and plastics, all made of oil.
And people who object to advertising live in a world in which their daily lives are provided for by companies that depend on advertising to exist.
As PT Barnum said "Without promotion, something terrible happens... nothing!" and all the companies that make up our economic ecosystem depend on things happening …. sales, which don’t happen without promotion.
Advertising has been around since Ancient Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago and will be around in 5,000 more years.
I think we could actually start the path to this by making unethical advertising illegal. Here's kind of what I'm thinking: no forced advertising. All ads that steal time away from you (like forcing people to watch ads before accessing something) would be illegal. The reasoning being that you're essentially stealing an infinitely valuable resource: people's time. It's unethical for ad agencies to steal such a valuable resource for such a meager reason.
A lot of niche things I want cease to exist in this advertising-free world. If the interest isn't mainstream enough to get a word-of-mouth recommendation then it can't survive. The services we use to find these things, Google, Etsy, Fan sites, none of them exist without advertising. I'm sure you can think of something that was never explicitly advertised to you, that you wanted, that you wouldn't be able to find anymore if this came to pass.
I would love if we could just make unavoidable advertising illegal. What I mean by unavoidable are things like billboards, bus stop ads, ads on the plane preceding the safety demonstration, ads in a train station, etc.
I’m very fine with ads on private spaces. In a guitar magazine, a few ads for new music equipment actually makes the product better and is a win for everyone.
I understand that this distinction has a gray area, but we could start with the black and white cases (Vermont has tried)
> I am convinced that outlawing advertising is the best thing we can do for our world now. More than gun control. More than tackling climate change.
i would rather live in a world of public transportation, with less children and vegan oriented (climate change == enviroment) without people with guns and only at the hands of an effective police; 100x times than an ad. free world...
wrote this at my Android without a single ad. notification, via Firefox along ublock. been a while i watch an ad.
Taking the “organic certification” approach, there could be a “ad-free certification” for products and companies. This could be a first step towards an ad-free world.
Such and interesting thought provoking situation. So much money circulates and thrives off the idea of advertising. The concept of YouTube would cease to exist. Some products would never even get off the ground without some level of advertising.
What constitutes advertising vs marketing?
Does product placement count as advertising or marketing?
Does opening up a pop shop count as advertising or marketing?
So much to this, ultimately we do need to regulate advertisements. But I am not sure we can survive without them.
We describe "consuming" information and media just like food. I would settle for all media and advertisements having a required Nutrition Facts label:
Serving size: 1200 words / 60 seconds
Total commercial advertisement content: 600 words
Total US Government sponsored content: 300 words
Total foreign government sponsored content: 100 words
Total NGO sponsored content: 200 words
% of daily content of society shaping propaganda: 30%
% of daily content of subliminal content: 15%
% of daily content of emotional manipulation: %40
% of daily content of Gen5 warfare: 20%
I love the general idea, but banning all forms of paid advertising seems a step to far. That encompass a lot, and enforcing it would be near impossible. There's also clear areas where it could have a negative impact, like for public transport that relies on providing ad placement.
I don't see a problem with criminalizing big ad companies, ad markets, and ad middlemen. I think that would solve a good chunk of the issue.
What goes into your sense organs is just as meaningful, and capable of causing unwanted and lasting change or trauma, than what somebody does to your physical body. Intellectual force is no less force than physical force is.
Harassment is just a mild precursor to outright force. Advertising is just a mild precursor to intellectual force. Advertising is to indoctrination as physical harassment is to physical force.
Another approach with overlapping effects is to make companies extremely liable for misuse or mismanagement of personal information.
There would still be advertising, and maybe even some personalized advertising, but in many cases they might decide the risk isn't worth it.
It would also impact data-brokers and operations that don't strictly rely on direct-to-consumer advertising, like background checks, but credit scores, sales leads, etc.
Do you always answer the door for Jehovah's Witnesses, alternative gas companies, or posters? Usually, people put "No soliciting" signs on their doors and in their yard. They get irritated, if not irate, when these people ring the doorbell. How is advertising any different? Would you invite these people into your home to watch TV with you, eat dinner or drive around town?
I see it as a privacy issue.
I agree with this article but wish it had more facts and figures backing it up rather than vibes and adjectives.. bad faith actors may be malnourished by lack of ad money to prop up their sensationalism, but there are still platforms like patreon or substack(not advocating to destroy these platforms). Without solid evidence I can’t make the logical leap that advertising alone causes this.
A start might be to enforce, or perhaps strengthen, laws against false advertising. I think most advertising is dishonest outright or at least by implication or omission. If everyone in the chain of custody of commercial speech was held liable if the speech was misleading, the world would look rather different. Compare the tone of a company's ads to the tone of its SEC filings.
Advertising is not a modern phenomenon, business owners would shout and have town heralds advertise through them. Everyone being literate is a modern thing and people need to learn how to modulate themselves. You don’t have to buy things cause something is on sale. A business owner is absolutely entitled to shout if their underwear is 20% off and you’re entitled to ignore them.
Where do we draw the line at what counts as an advertisement? I just bought a cassette tape that I learned about from a Facebook post. What do we call that post if not an advertisement? And if that was illegal, how exactly would I have found out the tape? Word of mouth? I don't think there is anyone in a 100 mile radius who listens to the same kind of music as me.
A lot of corporate environment is perception manipulation. I feel it borrows a lot from the general public perception manipulation that companies and governments do which is through ads and media. There needs to be a better way to go about these things as it affects everything. Skills are less values these days, at least in Big tech, compared to perception manipulation.
“What if we made advertising illegal?”
Many small companies would go out of business, that’s what. Yes we definitely need advertising reform, but advertising is a very important part of any business if they want to be successful. Making it illegal would cut a lot of businesses off from their potential customers. The author doesn’t seem to propose any alternative solution for this.
There's some fascinating research by Rachel Griffith which shows that advertising can be significantly welfare reducing for not only customers, but also for companies themselves (they just overall make lower money taken together); it is just another dimension of competition, like pricing/positioning, and adding a meaningful dimension is costly.
I think a better thing to do would be to outlaw algorithmic feeds where monetization is via advertising. If subscription based that is fine. The incentive for sub based monetization is to keep you long enough to continue subscribing. For ads it is to keep you on as long as possible which trends towards divisive / fear / anger inducing content.
I think this is an excellent discussion to have.
Say we implement this, a natural consequence would be mega-corporations providing every service possible. My Yamaha bike displays a message to promote a Yamaha music keyboard, then expanding to a new Yamaha bookstore or grocery chain.
No money exchanged out of the first-party Yamaha holding.
We would need to improve the proposal to prevent that too.
Immediately reminded me of something I read a couple of years ago https://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html, which has some strong opinions on why advertising should be banned
"What if we banned all advertising?"
This sounds like someone who was born intoo an era of internet advertising. As opposed to someone who has been expoosed to adevrtising over many forms of media, the internet being only a recent addition.
The early internet had no advertising. Commercial use of the computer network against the rules.
The web-based companies comprising "Big Tech", while they dominate today's internet by acting as allegedly "necessary" intermediaries and conducting surveillance, appear to have no viable business model to stay "big" in this scenario: where the computer network does not allow advertising, let alone commercial use.
Thus, the question "What if we banned all advertising" sounds extreme, unrealistic, the product of myopia, all-or-nothing thinking. Advertising will always be "legal". But historically man has regulated where it can be disseminated/placed.
A more interesting question might be "What if we had a computer network where advertising was prohibited or limited". About 35 years ago we did. Then the rules against commercial use were removed. Now people are complaining. People who never used the network in the time before advertising was allowed.
Imagine what it would be like to have a computer network without advertising using the computer and networking technology we have today.
Maybe this network could be built on top of the internet, as an overlay.
Make no mistake, there will always be computer internetworks that allow advertising. But the first ones didn't. And there could be ones in the future that don't.
I'm kind of shocked how rare it is to see someone say this out loud. We've normalized advertising to such a ridiculous degree that even questioning it feels like heresy. But yeah, imagine how different the internet (and society) would be if the incentive to manipulate attention just vanished overnight.
What if advertising were 100% truthful and straightforward. Like in that movie "The Invention of Lying" with the scene that shows a close up of the side of a bus with "Pepsi" on it, then as it pulls away the full advert reads "Pepsi... For when then don't have Coke".
I like open questions like this. It forces us to think from first principles, and potentially tackle consequences.
One problem that would come up… It would be very hard to get word out of new (better) products. If you have a great product that doesn’t lend itself to word of mouth, how will anyone know if you can’t advertise?
It's impossible to enforce a law like this. The real solution is to create personal AI filters for each person that reads all the data for the user, filters out anything that doesn't enrich the user, and hides the rest. A general-purpose AI-enabled spam filter for your entire digital life.
Submissions from yesterday and 3 days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580586 - 8 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558438 - 4 comments
[Slavery is immoral] is a corollary of the principle that [human autonomy is sacred]. It is not very farfetched to have the moral principle that [human attention is sacred]. If we take this principle seriously, a large number of manipulative dark patterns would be considered wildly unethical.
This seems to focus on online advertising. The question is how would you pay for many things on the internet?
I don't know if advertising should go, freedom of speech and all of that.
I could see an argument for eliminating targeted advertising. I think everyone gets the same message or none at all.
Being able to precisely target a desired group for a desired outcome seems too powerful and dangerous to exist as it does today.
More than ads, it's engagement algorithms that are killing us. We should outlaw those first and then see where we end up. Engagement algorithms do nothing except ruin society by incentivizing content creators to lie to us, and to make videos that are psychically horrible to society.
we could start by banning digital profiling and personalized ads entirely. the remaining ads could work with a pull model, and not this endless push model it's currently in. if I am in need of a service or goods, I should initiate the intake of ads, not the other way around.
If you want to take an incremental step towards this start here: make it illegal to buy or sell user data.
My ad blocker blocked 4 tracker scripts on this website.
This website is about blocking advertising because they're often predatory and invasive.
> Outlawing advertising would help protect and reinvigorate our minds and democracy.
Practice what you preach. Or don't, if you just want to make a quick-hit blog post.
No, I need advertising to know what companies to avoid. The more annoying the ad, the more will I spend time and effort to avoid the product and boycott the business. Which is quite easy actually, since most online adverts are for obvious scams anyways.
It will give enormous power to the monopolies. Because you'll no longer be able to advertise your product, but search on marketplaces will still be legal right? That means, Amazon, Alibaba etc. will have an absolute chokehold on everyone who sells things.
Perhaps another approach could be a seperate or a subset internet where advertising is punished by banishment. Routing and Dns records to be deleted on proof of advertisement.
Sure it's a very hard to implement and most probably easy to abuse idea.
However is it impossible? Food for thought.
Theoretically, this is impossible.
There is already a concept called surrogate advertising. In India, promoting alcohol products is banned, but companies advertise packaged drinking water instead. Everyone knows what it really represents, yet nothing can be done about it.
Here's how not constitutional this idea is: municipalities can't even ban circular flyers, which is essentially junk thrown onto the doorsteps of everybody's houses, junk nobody wants, because the First Amendment proscribes those ordinances.
I don't think I fully agree with either the premise or the solution, but the pov is at least refreshing; in a world full of people proposing the same stuff we already tried 100x times over the last 70 years and we already know it doesn't work.
If we're going to do the extremely hard thing, why not just make ads opt-in:
Your meal will cost $2.39 less if you watch an advertisement for Irish Spring soap and another for Liberty Mutual insurance. Do you accept these terms?EDIT: When I said "I've felt the same way", I meant about outlawing advertising. Propaganda in general should be allowed—especially the political kind. But consumerist propaganda (aka advertising) needs to be abolished.
___
I've felt the same way. Some thoughts I had while reading:
> Propaganda is advertising for the state, and advertising is propaganda for the private. Same thing.
Rare to see someone else recognize this. Not all propaganda is malicious; all systematic spreading of ideas aimed at promoting a cause or influencing opinions is propaganda.
> Think about what's happened since 2016: Populists exploit ad marketplaces
This feels like calling out conservatives. Ironically, it's through relentless propaganda over a century that progressivism has become ascendant. We're reminded 24/7 from every mainstream institution, that what has historically been radically unpopular is ACTUALLY "normal" and "respectable". Indeed, it's only through such incessant propaganda that overwhelmingly unpopular trends have been able to take hold.
> what poisons our democracy is a liberating act in itself. An action against that blurry, “out-of-focus fascism”
What poisons our republic is progressives forgetting that they're ascendant and how they got there.
What's really interesting about this is that it's not just about advertising, but rather several deeper issues that all intersect with it.
* the pervasive tracking of data and serving targeted ads without consent.
* the addictive algorithms engineered to keep users engaged in the feedback loop.
* the machinery being used beyond commercial purposes - influencing opinions, manufacturing consent, and sometimes being hijacked by bad actors.
Not to mention the philosophical and psychological implications. What does democracy mean when elections come down to who spent the most on Ads? What's the merit of capitalism if consumers can be brain washed?
Like most here, I have a vendetta against Ad-tech and go to great lengths to keep ads out of my life (i highly recommend opnSense - Blocking ads across the whole home network is pure bliss).
But should they be illegal?
Questions of what constitutes an ad, how to enforce such a rule, and my personal opinion aside: I don't think its inherently wrong for a company to promote their products. I do, however, believe that all of the above points - data tracking, addictive algorithms, non-commercial ads - are bad and should be illegal. Outlawing all of those practices would do a great deal to restoring balance to advertising and the web.
Not thinking big enough. Make paid-for public speech illegal. Make speech free. Eliminates advertising plus punditry. Imagine a world where no-one gets paid a kingly sum to whisper poison into the ears of millions on a daily basis.
Ironic that the article pops up a banner "Follow @index@simone.org via your Fediverse account (like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Flipboard, Wordpress, Writefreely, Threads, or BlueSky.)" ie advertising themselves.
Advertising is a zero-sum game, just as most crypto and stock market activity.
It's the basis for web2 economy just like crypto is the basis for web3 economy, though. So it's hard to make a man admit something when his livelihood depends on it.
The crime is broadcasting without a license.
We are all guilty, making waves, swamping the spectrum with antagonistic signals that often interfere with each other.
We have too many signals in our society. The resulting noise, the cacophony of lies, are echoed and amplified and evolve into perpetual crosstalk and distortion.
Too many signals transmitting too frequently with too much power.
We can't really outlaw advertising.
But we could limit and license spectrum, like we do with radio frequencies. We could legislate the broadcasting and publication of information, based on that extended simile: regulating 'antenna power' and the airwave spectrum... Holding any broadcaster responsible for the public welfare of their listeners.
We share the infosphere. These channels are theoretically owned by us, the aggregate public. Certainly we are all swimming in the same ocean.
We might want to agree on some boundaries, and even licensing, for broadcasters.
I believe companies would resort to paying individuals to give word of mouth or endorsements to friends and neighbors and anyone who will listen. Social media would be full of "I've just tried this and..."
so if Simone.org here paid someone to help build this website of theirs, where the posts ends with "Sign up for KĹŤdĹŤ Simone" and a short blurb why the blog is valuable, that would be illegal, right? Because they paid someone to create an advertisement. This post claims that "community networks" are fine but where is the line between that and a paid advertisement - if I paid someone to print my business cards vs. paid them to put the card on a board? or to put up flyers around town for my band? "advertisement" is so vague I just dont understand this proposal.
> The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear
It's naive to think so. The obvious argument against that is that the behavior of the consumer, not the producer, is what constitutes the problem
There is of course absolutely zero chance of this happening. But I didn't actually expect that amongst people rather than lobbyists/corporations the very idea would actually be considered controversial, subversive or offensive. I'd have brought popcorn if I expected this incredible display of mental gymnastics. I guess I assumed that even people who are forced into the situation where ads are their bread and butter directly or indirectly still know about the damage and think the whole thing is gross. (I've been there and done that myself..)
Now I'm thinking of the "neighborhood beautification projects" in Abbey's Monkeywrench Gang though where the guys light up the cutting torches to cut down any billboards that get too close to the Grand Canyon. The fear of course is that police might drive by, since if you think about it the activity itself is really reversing vandalism more than anything else. Apparently today you would have to worry about mobs of concerned citizens tearing you to pieces for taking away their right to be advertised to? I'm so amazed by the very idea of this I can't even get that disgusted or angry about it. What else are these people up to, how do they live and what else do they think? Like, if the best food was determined by ad budgets, do they wonder what to have for dinner ever, and what's the most gourmet cuisine in that world? Best candidate for the election is the one with the biggest ad budget? Channel surfing to get away from the annoying so called "content" that prevent you from seeing ads? I feel a bit like I've discovered alien life or something
Start with banning billboards.
Rather than ban ads in an absolutist sense, why not think about ads as “bads” (rather than “goods” in economic terms) and then tax them?
Let’s define a “good” as something with positive utility and value, and define a “bad” as something that imposes harm or negative externalities. If we treat advertising as a “bad” — not uniformly, but in terms of impact (manipulation, misinformation, psychological harm) — then we can apply Pigovian logic: tax it to reflect its societal cost. This wouldn’t require a blanket ban, just a rebalancing of incentives. Less intrusive or more transparent ads might be taxed less, while high-volume, misleading, or attention-hijacking ones could face heavier levies.
This shares the spirit of the original argument but trades prohibition for systemic correction — more like how we treat pollution or cigarettes. The advantage is that it avoids the free speech trap, acknowledges that not all advertising is equally harmful, and allows markets to adjust.
You don’t need a moral consensus to act — just an agreement to price the harm.
I have thought a lot about this basic idea of “incentivise goods / tax bads” over the years, and even how to do it a way that is revenue neutral to the government (via “feebates”) and advertising is one of the first places I’d try this.
Likelihood of success in the current climate: zero.
This is such an insanely good and important idea, that it feels inevitable that we'll eventually do it, probably in the next decades/centuries.
Probably one of the hardest new laws we'll ever have to implement.
Is the "follow me" bar that moves with (and covers some of) the third paragraph and can't be dismissed intended? Either way, it struck me as a little ironic given the content of the article.
People market themselves when they put on makeup. Should makeup be banned too?
Advertising medicine, medical services and legal services used to be illegal because it is unethical. Then the US Supreme Court ruled it had to be legal. This is just stating history. Interpret it as you will.
I think this needs to be fixed at a different level. Companies (at least in the US), are supposed to be growing.
“You're Either Growing Or You're Dying.”
Banning or limiting advertising will be hard until that type of thinking changes.
I've sold a product that were only possible to sell because of targeted advertising.
The customers were happy and I made a profit.
Hard to see advertising as outright bad even though it should probably be more regulated than it is.
Although I almost never see any ads at all online thanks to uBlock Origin on all of my devices, I agree that making it illegal would be a net benefit for society. It would be hard! But worth it.
Impossible in the United States under the constitution. To put plainly, this would be a colossal first amendment violation, abridging the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Read the bio of the author. It includes this:
> I spend my time as a creative marketing strategist and technologist, growing public companies and startups.
Sounds like they may know what they are talking about....
How would that work for physical shops, restaurants etc.? No illuminated signs allowed? No products or services visibly displayed? Everything has to be invisible in the streets?
Well, it would be great if we could simulate an ad free environment
Who is going to know about your product if you cannot advertise it?
Is there any concrete evidence that anything bad has ever happened as a result of advertising? I don't like rap music, but I think it would obviously stupid of me to claim that it's harmful because I dislike the aesthetics.
What is the steel man for "advertising bad"? Articles like this always take for granted that advertising is harmful, whereas on the contrary I'm starting from a position where advertising is one of the greatest things that has ever happened, enriching us and making our lives far more vibrant and diverse. PS I have never worked on ads and rarely use them for my products, they are just obviously economically beneficial for everyone.
I’m amazed that people can both see how the current administration is twisting laws and are even thinking that it is a good thing to give the government more control over speech.
Funnily enough, this comes via HN which is a beacon of non-advertizing. Would like to hear the admins tales of the various commercial approaches they've had over the years.
I'm not sure why every state doesn't outlaw billboards. That would seem to be a low-hanging fruit. A few states have already done it.
Get it on a ballot measure.
What if every service offered on the internet supported by advertising were legally required to offer an ad-free version (which is allowed to carry a monthly fee)?
This is the exact type of thinking, this type of casual totalitarian social engineering, that led to the invention on the guillotine.
Interesting but the issue is that you can't just ban advertising because it has many aspects.
20% discount or tv ads are a form of advertising, easy to spot. What about sponsored content ?
It's already trickier to detect, and even then there are sponsored content where someone is paid to showcase, review or straight up lie about a product quality.
If I make a great job with a customer and I tell him, make everyone you know aware how great I am. That's also a form of advertising.
Just being myself is advertising for myself, if I'm good at something, I can take part in a talent tv show and purposely avetise my skills to tv viewer.
This is poorly thought out. What this would incentivize is first party content networks. Instead of fox selling ads it would be the colgate channel for example
There never was any need for advertising, except for someone desiring to get paid for it.
you know it's a scam the moment they promise you more than 2% returns.
Don’t need to make it illegal just make it not deductible.
From what I can tell, the problem isn't advertising so much as surveillance.
Surveillance is much worse, and banning it also solves the worst aspects of advertising.
Hmmm many cities in France have toyed with this idea for a long time, so it's already not that wild, and clearly in the public discourse in Europe
People already give away free advertising for free by wearing branded clothing. That is more beneficial to companies then actual ads on screens.
On the South Bank in London, physical advertising (posters/billboards etc) is banned and it makes it a much nicer place to hang out
I just wish I had an option to say I’m not interested.
If you give me extra wishes, I’d love three options, to either say that the ad is annoying, the brand isn’t for me, or I don’t want to be offered that type of product.
The quality of ads would skyrocket if I could just stop seeing efforts to get me to be interested in things that I will never buy.
Just before joining Facebook, I was living abroad and confronted to ads in a language I didn’t understand constantly. As my bootcamp task, I measured that this was 4% of ads shown to users. At the time, this was already billions of dollars. My manager deemed that to be a ridiculous and pointless exercise. One night at the bar (there were three bars in the London office at the time), I mentioned it to a guy who happened to be the big ad boss, who immediately prioritized the project, I got a couple of smart guys who joined after I was promoted for finding this.
A bit later, I checked the conversion rate by how many times you’ve seen the same ad before. It was a precipitous cliff: people click on things they’ve never seen before. Ranking ads from the same advertiser happens to be one of those SQL/Hive query that doesn’t scale well, so I had to use the fact I came to the office early and has 12 hours of uninterrupted server time before the daily queries were hammering anything, and I had to sample a lot—but I realized I could sample by server, which helped a lot.
I tried to mention it to the same guy, who said he knew about that problem, but empowering users like I suggested would not work: it would shrink the matching opportunities, AI was getting smarter, etc. In practice, the debate around privacy got very toxic, and Facebook couldn’t let people do that without some drama about storing a list of advertisers that they said they didn’t like.
One of Sandberg’s trusted lieutenants lost a child late in her pregnancy; it was a whole thing. She started seeing ads for baby clothes just after, which triggered an optional ban on alcohol, gambling, and baby stuff. That’s still there. I worked with her briefly a bit later (after months of bereavement) and asked if it made sense to expand the category. She replied that those were two legal obligations, plus her well-known personal drama that no one dared push against, so she was able to push for those three, but that the company had changed. No other categories could be added: at that point, it would be too difficult. Mark used to not care about ads, but he started having expensive ideas, notably AI (to ban horrendous content); he needed the money, and he started to care about raking as much dough in as possible. I had worked on horrendous content (instead of ad language) enough to know that it mattered, so I was very conflicted. It felt surreal how much things had changed in nine months.
All that still feels like a giant waste, not the least how much energy goes into making and showing ads to people repeatedly swearing at their screen, begging to make that annoying copy disappear.
To measure attention while confusing it with intent, is at the root of everything wrong with today's society.
A start would be banning of misleading statements and half-truths.
A panel of randomly selected 100 people will be the judge and jury.
Glad to see this, been noodling on it for a long time. My crazy proposal is to make advertising illegal, in the US... by nationalizing Craigslist. USList or some such.
No more billboards, no more ads on TV or radio or podcasts or when you're on a plane or when you're in an Uber and they have that screen. No more ads in something you've already paid for a la newspapers.
You want to advertise to, say, all the people in Arkansas? You have to pay them directly to post your ad on Arkansas USList. Want to target further? Great, you have to pay the county to post on their board. Then, people that want to see your ads can go to their local board, filter by their interests, and maybe see your ad. Want to target all the electricians in a county? Their union runs a board and you can pay them.
Cities/counties/states/${localeType}s could opt to, say, issue an advertising dividend to their residents.
My definition of advertising is the unwanted stealing of your attention by someone who wants you to buy something. Or be aware of something you could buy. It takes you out of a context you have put yourself in, stealing your attention (and therefore your time, which is all we really have in this life).
My stupid USList idea flips this on its head by making it possible to only see ads when you want to.
Movie trailers when you're at the cinema are ads, sure. But they are ads that fit the context you've put yourself in. If you're at the theater, it makes sense for the playbill to list other shows. If you're at a restaurant, the list of specials, or a wine recommended by your server are both appropriate. Even a list of specials or deals in the window of a restaurant, as long as it isn't 100x100ft and illuminaated, is fine by me.
But an LED billboard distracting you with a 2-for-1 meal deal as you drive down the freeway is out of your context (and dangerous! and needlessly polluting!) When we consider the tracking and spying that has become possible thanks to online advertising companies like Google, Facebook, etc... it's scary. And entirely needless.
Like I said, I've been noodling on this for a while and am definitely the crazy anti-advertising guy in my circles. But once I point out the prevalence of ads and how it's like being kicked in the knees all day, I've found people seem to start getting it. I've done more than a few pihole + wireguard installs, UBlock origin + Sponsorblock installs, etc.
Fuck ads.
Illegalize advertising. Then intensely monitor every conversation everywhere always for advertizational content.
as good as it may sound, but this will never happen. People will never pay for everything, majority don't even buy PC games, they use pirated one's. This is how humans are designed, and this is what which keeps the market afloats.
Yeah I really want Simone to be the overlord who defines what should and shouldn't be allowed
What about ads from governments and organisations that promote mental health awareness, DEI, etc.?
Why? Are people going to your house and measuring your feet and asking if you want to buy sneakers?
Entrenched incumbent big businesses (others than those selling advertising) love this proposal
Don't ban advertising but also don't treat commercial advertising as pure free speech.
For instance, for false claims, make it easier to drag a corporation into court and get legal remedies commensurate with the damage or potential damage caused by their dishonesty.
Right now the bias is towards unfettered, dishonest and psychologically manipulative commercial "free speech" with no guardrails the average person can enforce.
So, saying "we think this is the best detergent ever" is fine. It's clearly an opinion. But false or generally misleading claims, especially those that cover-up the potential dangers of the product, could lead to punitive damages sufficient to be a deterrent.
Burning Man is an example of advertising free world and it is quite a refreshing ad-free week.
We'd probably go into a recession, there is a lot of money in advertising and marketing
Just tax it.
Not surprising that people react as negatively to this in this forum as they do. Most people here would lose their jobs after all. Though keep in mind that once the dust has settled you'd also have the opportunity to do something more meaningful with your life than AB testing ways to make number go up faster.
That would be huge, also really good original scenario idea for a future sci-fi film
How are you going to define advertising? Does the proposal include making it illegal to tell friends how happy you are with $PRODUCT from $COMPANY - which made a truly good product and had good customer support, and deserves to have the word spread?
Is it advertising if you say it in conversation? What about on your blog?
99% of consumer tech would die
I hate advertising because it’s nonconsensual, subconscious manipulation. When I see an ad for product X, I’m more likely to buy it in the store than product Y because there’s artificially increased familiarity for it in my brain. If the purpose of advertising was to inform, you’d never see an ad for Coca Cola, since everybody on the planet knows about it already. The %0.01 of advertising that informs me of a product that I might actually purchase can die overnight, and I’d not notice a difference, because I use adblockers and when I need something, I search for it on the internet, Google, Amazon, and the like. When I need reviews I turn to Reddit and HN.
If advertising is a zero-sum game between companies competing for your eyeball-minutes, allocating double digits of their income to marketing departments, it’s a net drain on the economy. If it’s a positive-sum game for companies and you are purchasing more goods than you otherwise would because of the ads you see, it means you are purchasing stuff you don’t need, and it means advertising is a way to funnel your money to companies through nonconsensual means, i.e theft. In reality it’s a slightly positive sum game for companies.
Advertising is cancerous in the sense that if there was no advertising, nobody needs to advertise, but if somebody is advertising and you are not, then you’ll lose market share and die, so you advertise too and hence it spreads. It is parasitic in the sense that vast amounts of collective resources of society is spent on this redirecting-money-from-company-A-to-company-B scheme with no positive value generated.
Political advertising undermines democracy. Ads have a huge influence on the outcome of modern elections. You need billionaires backing you to fund your campaign, and guess what? Those billionaires will have some special requests when you take the seat. Fair elections and leaders caring for the people are only possible in a world without political advertising.
All arguments in favor of advertising are circular, they presume the current economy/society where everything is heavily dependent on advertising and then point out “Look, but X wouldn’t work without advertising!” In reality a world without advertising would look much different, and my hunch is it would be wealthier and with less inequality, too.
Social media is nearly the same as those home shopping channels from the 90’s.
Nice. Advertisements is one of the first things I studied seriously, when still in high school almost thirty years ago. I remember arriving at the very same conclusion, even though Big (AD) Tech had yet to arrive. Any hypothetical rational and enlightened society in the future - think Star Trek - would of course not have any advertisement. It just doesn't make sense. It is a compromise, an evolutionary transition, like fascism, human sacrifices or settling conflicts with a duel of pistols.
If we - as in humanity - are still there in 500 to 1000 years, advertisement may be taught in a history class as one of the barbaric practices of the 21th century. Maybe some scholars will be able to relate it to world hunger, climate change and genocide with a mathematical precision that we are not yet capable of. That is a timeline I love to think about.
Of course, slaving away in the asteroid mines for Bezos inc., looking at hyper sexualized ads for a trip to Mars is equally likely.
From a forum with technical people (that build stuff) I would have hoped to see more ideas that would propose replacing advertising with something better (sorry, if I missed any replies, but did not see that).
Advertising can be useful (to find out about stuff) but very disingenuous (because people can lie). What I would very much like is to be able to assess the trustworthiness and similarity of people advertising me stuff. If someone likes same things as me and I never find him to "lie" (whatever my personal interpretation of that is) I should give him more trust. If someone picks things that I am not interested in and I think he favors stuff (because he is paid, for example) I should give him less trust. Then when I look for a product/video/restaurant I should see things recommended by people I trust more.
I know this kind of happens with "stars", "vloggers" and so on but lacking a system where you track it, means that it is easier to get complex to separate who is just "fun" and you watch but you know he lies and who is also "trustworthy" and you know you can also take his recommendations into account.
But that's just one idea, maybe there are others out there...
I'm not against this idea, but I feel like it can be really hard to execute in practice. Especially considering that many of the parties involved don't mind being maliciously compliant.
The really tough part is classifying "what counts as an ad". Of course the ones shown by Facebook and Google are ads, but let's look at some not-so-straightforward examples:
1. The community centre in my neighbourhood has a wall with lots of ads from local groups. Language practice groups (which are free), language lessons (paid), narcotics anonymous, painting classes, and a lot of other services provided by individuals or small groups. Some of them non-profit, some of them are the main source of income for those providing the service. I deliberately approached this wall looking for those ads, and we need them for this kind of groups to survive.
2. A supermarket places a large banner near the entrance with this week's offers. The products on offer are expiring soon. There's an interest in selling the goods so they are consumed and don't go bad. The interest isn't only on the supermarket's behalf: as a society, we want to minimise the amount of food that goes to waste.
3. How do we buy and sell houses if there are no ads for "houses on sale". I am aware that there are economic models where individuals don't need to buy and sell houses, but switching to such a model seems way beyond the scope of the proposal. Is an ad stuck to the window still allowed?
4. iOS shows "suggestions" in the order of "sign up for cloud storage to store my data because your phone is full". I consider this an ad. Can we write legislation which would catalogue this as an ad without false positives?
Digital content is not “published” in the same way as traditional content.
Digital content is published by placing data on a computer, connecting that computer to the intent, then running software on that computer that allows software on other computers to connect to it and download that content.
Attempting to ban ads is an attempt to censor the content of that communication. It’s analogous to attempting to ban the things people can say over telephone calls. It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
The Author’s points about “Dopamine Megaphones” and “tracking” don’t hold up.
Posting something online is not the same as yelling through a megaphone. And restrictions on tracking are about behavior, not speech.
One can outlaw both of those things without unreasonably restricting speech.
But banning ads is absolutely unreasonable restraint of free speech rights.
If I speak on the telephone, I am allowed to hand the phone to someone else for a moment and let them speak. Banning such a thing would be unconstitutional.
Many online ads work in the same way.
Similarly, I can take money from someone, and in response speak things they want me to speak. Restraining that is also a violation of free speech rights.
Just because online ads are horrible, doesn’t mean they can be outlawed without trampling on fundamental rights.
The article is suggesting that they'd rather not have ads than not have guns? Because ads are tools of manipulation? WTF do they think guns are for?!
Let's face it, it is incredibly simple to entirely avoid ads everywhere online. Vivaldi or Brave will block all ads (Brave even does it in YouTube) so just install those in 2 taps and you're set.
Many online communities and first party sites are free because they are paid for/motivated by ad income though
Sure there are many sites that don't have ads and are done truly as a passion project by the owner(s) but many rely on the income to pay for bandwidth and hosting etc, or even staff costs. Would Reddit et al exist without any source of income?
People say "I'd pay to use foo without ads!" Yet when those options are available, and when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, turns out that actually most people don't want to pay to access foo without ads (think YouTube, think Facebook etc that have ad free tiers that hardly anyone pays for). People just block the ads and keep using it for free and so the site gets neither ad revenue nor subscription revenue.
It is possible because the largest incumbents would profit enormously
"Bullshit. No one is entitled to yell at you “GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY” with a dopamine megaphone in your bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how to say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment."
Feels similar to a point in a larger rant about bloated page sizes:
https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
"I think we need to ban third-party tracking, and third party ad targeting.
Ads would become dumb again, and be served from the website they appear on.
Accepted practice today is for ad space to be auctioned at page load time. The actual ads (along with all their javascript surveillance infrastructure) are pulled in by the browser after the content elements are in place.
In terms of user experience, this is like a salesman arriving at a party after it has already started, demanding that the music be turned off, and setting up their little Tupperware table stand to harass your guests. It ruins the vibe."
I actually think that pre-internet ads were okay. Even the tv ones, before the era of obnoxious marketing came (but not really). I read a bunch of journals my and my friends's parents have ordered and it was even cool to see ads that weren't targeted. I remember looking at pages with watches, suits, condoms, beauty lines, hair shampoos, etc. It was sort of natural and wasn't as stupid and repulsive as modern internet ads. The ads were consistent with the auditory of the issue, so if you're reading it, chances are you're interested. And the best part was, when you put it down, it doesn't follow you.
So I think more about making internet ads illegal, just to wash out all the spying filth from it. Alphabet, meta, parts of amazon, etc. They are natural cancer and prone to propaganda attacks because it's the same thing.
As per entertainment, people will find the way. Kids these days may not know, but nothing has as much energy as a bored teen/20+ ager. We formed physically local groups based on interests and had life that wasn't 99% passive peering into the screen.
I love this idea. Jaron Lanier should join forces with the author.
I hate ads. I hate them everywhere I see them, but if you want to start a business, and you can’t advertise, how do you possibly stand a chance against entrenched incumbents? Banning advertisements is regulatory capture taken to an extreme.
That's the best thing I've read in months if not years.
Not going to happen. There is no higher calling than advertising and marketing. Most of us here have probably worked on something that is at least adjacent to or in support of that noblest deed of influencing others to spend money.
Funny that it literally begins with “Follow @index@simone.org via your Fediverse account (like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Flipboard, Wordpress, Writefreely, Threads, or BlueSky.)”
Or is that just helpfully letting us know of something related that we might want ;)
This is as ridiculous as asking, “What if we made agriculture illegal?”
You don’t make a planet of 8 billion people work without the trappings of civilization, good and bad. You certainly don’t make it work without commerce and freedom of speech.
>It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public discourse.
>Algorithm-driven platforms like Instagram and TikTok that harvest and monetize attention, destroying youth, would lose their economic foundation.
I guess the author has never been on HN.
This simply assumes Instagram would no longer function because of zero ad placement dollars. I guess the author doesn't know how KOLs works in product launch and promotion.
I get a lot of stick every time I had to say this, but a lot of people in tech, has a very simplistic view that all ads are evil without understanding how ad works in the first place. Especially beyond digital ad. And to make matter worst any discussions about Ad's argument has been downvoted in the past 10-12 years. Some of the questions which toomim purpose would be instantly dropped. I guess the vibe shift is real.
But if there is one type of ad we should ban. It would be political ads. A candidate's legitimacy should not be partly dependent on amount of ad money you throw at it.
> Any form of paid and/or third-party advertising would become illegal. Full stop.
I am currently selling my house. He's basically saying this would become impossible. This whole post has some real im14andthisisdeep energy.
Some sort of default Anonymity layer may be worth exploring
Humans, incentives, and capitalism are fundamentally intertwined. Capitalism at its core is simply a game we play daily together, driven by incentives. Banning advertising doesn’t remove incentives, just rearranges them.... If you change one rule (like banning advertising), the system has is always very quickly reorganize around the new incentives. Also, given we live in a fully 100% market driven society, trust, not attention, is the true currency. As long as humans exchange value, influence is inevitable. To effectively improve the system, you can't just ban advertising because the idea should not be to try to stop persuasion, it's a requirement in a functioning free market driven society as it enables many many many downstream effects.
This would be an insanely cool premise for a short story!
We’d probably have more underground free papers with clever writing, littered with tons ads in them, circulating around in the black market.
But there would likely also be a lot of bad “telephone,” literal word of mouth, but the message might get lost, turning into disinformation.
On the other hand, there could be organized, sanctioned markets where you’re allowed to hock wares and show off product catalogs.
> It makes perfect sense.
Only to authoritarians who think banning things is the solution to everything.
This is the typical "common sense Genius notion" that hasn't been thought out one bit.
This person doesn't care for democracy. They are zealots and ignore the fact that:
- marketing is communication to achieve a goal (reaching a potential customer about the value of a service) and is a legal way for companies to compete. If they can't do marketing legally they'll do it illegally and/or compete with violence. - discoverability is necessary and if you didn't have any means to discover stuff it would be insane or worse, absolutely dictated by this "democracy lover" who wants to have total control for "the greater good".
I don't like ads one bit and absolutely welcome regulation (which is hard because whether you outlaw something or not, the money will be there, see alcohol and prohibition) but this is just so self congratulating and obtuse that it's hard to take it seriously.
All the talk about propaganda or fascism and laughing at the concept of free speech tells me this is yet again, one of these "my blue party lost the elections and I blame propaganda and ads" and that they haven't even given it a second thought beyond "I get clicks" because they don't explain how they propose making sure communication doesn't hide advertising in it. Articles like hers advertise her blog, posting it here is advertising. Making any sort of argument about X being better is an advertisement for X.
It's like people want to play scenarios in their head and refuse to think about economics and game theory because the reality is they want to shape the world politically to their will. Authoritanism hidden with "good feels".
No thank you. You're far more dangerousn than ads.
Hell yes. Advertising is legitimate interest but it has become completely degenerate with social networks and the attention economy.
It is the root cause of many modern issues and _something_ definitely needs to be done about it. It even erodes capitalism itself by making consumers the product, which has been known for a while but the generalization seems non-obvious - that this happens every time when to the producer-consumer relationship is introduced a third party that changes the financials incentives of producers.
I probably wouldn't go as far as making advertising completely illegal but I'd like to see it regulated and probably limited to spaces specifically made to be "advertising hubs" both online and in the physical world.
Why not just ban FALSE or MISLEADING advertising like Europe does? Apparently there is no difficulty in determining what is false there although I can see it might be a problem in the US currently.
Advertising isn’t the problem. It’s a natural part of discourse and business. The issue is “dishonesty” and “manipulation” and the tolerance of these.
Do we need a way to connect suppliers with consumers? Yes. Do we need an intermediary that acts in bad faith? No we do not.
I would propose the crazy idea that such intermediaries should be at least equally responsible to the consumers as the suppliers.
That would be helpful.
A lot of discussion here about where boundaries would be with free speech, how this would be implemented, specific details. But, as with any policy, this is not a binary "do it or don't". This is a dial that can be turned in a more libertarian or a more regulatory direction. (In fact, even this is simplistic: it's many hundreds of conceptually correlated dials.)
The interesting question is whether we're happy with where the dial is right now, which direction we want to push it, and how fast --- and the underlying meaning of the article is that maybe we should be pushing it in the regulatory direction very fast indeed.
Start with just outlawing political advertising.
For me it's the pointlessness of it all, and the fact that advertisements even when "targeted" are just sprayed out of a firehose at me.
So many apps I use are supported by 30-60s ads for some stupid fucking mobile game that I immediately know I don't want to install, I have no intention to interact with the ad and yet I'm forced to sit through it for 30s, only to hit the X on it and have it open the Play Store anyway?!?!
And video ads in general, if I know that I'm not interested right away, why am I forced to sit through 30-60s of it?
I mean I can look away from a fucking billboard...but this stuff. A great first step would be to make ads that forcibly hold attention like that illegal.
Regarding ads as free speech:
> Bullshit. No one is entitled to yell at you "GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY" with a dopamine megaphone in your bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how to say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment.
The same argument could be applied to the homeless people I see on most corners these days with cardboard signs designed to pull my heart strings. It's a different brain chemical, but it's actually real and it affects my re-uptake inhibitors a lot more. Should we ban them? Or just their signs?
Here are a few of the many defenses against advertising that are all free:
- Ad blockers for browsers
- Kill your television
- Listen to and support public media (unless those sponsorship messages count as ads which is a valid argument)
If literally everybody applied just those three things, advertising would die a natural death without having to ban anything.
<rant>
I'm a bit of a free speech zealot, and so I'll pull the slippery slope fallacy and just ask: after ads, what do we ban next? Sponsorship messages like public radio uses? Product placement in movies? Would we be allowed to have _any_ real products in movies or would everybody drink Slurm instead of Coke and drive around in Edisons instead of Teslas? Are movie previews allowed? What about product reviews where the product is given to the reviewer for free? What about Simone's presence on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert years ago? That was entertainment, but it also clearly advertised her YouTube channel. Is that allowed?
</rant>
We humans are one of the few animals that have within us multiple ways to kill ourselves. While that's mostly thanks to our awesome thumbs, our speech is another powerful tool. We're also one of the few animals that can, with much work, transcend our weaknesses and be more than the goop that makes us up. Finding out whether we do is the whole reason I'm sticking around.
what can be the alternate business model to serve services like instagram, youtube to such large no. of people???
This makes no sense. I build a great product. How the hell am I supposed to tell anyone about it outside of my immediate friends and family? Am I supposed to rely on the network effect to reach an audience? That sounds insane.
Capitalism depends on advertising to let people know of the product or service that is more cost effective than existing solutions. The advertising budget is dependent on knowing your product is actually good enough to justify the expense. Without advertising, competition itself doesn't work.
This has been on my mind ever since I realized 2 things:
- the difference between zero-sum and positive-sum games
- that large parts of society are engaged in zero- (or even negative-) sum games 1) some through choice or 2) because they are forced to, to be able to compete with group 1)
Advertising, manipulation, misinformation, disinformation, and lying are all related phenomena with negative effects on both individuals and society.
Just like Wales is the first place to propose punishing lying, at least from some positions of power, I am looking forward to whatever country becoming the first to make advertising illegal, at least in some forms and scales.
Someone wants to pull up the ladder?
How will a new business promote its product if advertising is banned ?
Thinking from a small business perspective, advertising is the only way to find consumers if you are just getting started.
Business stop advertising. Sales drop. People lose job.
Does that mean paying for Facebook?
Isn't this article advertisement by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
(edit: I have actually been thinking in similar terms as the article, but I do think the article is optimistic and utopian, as if a good intuition would be enough to prevent the very same forces from exploring the reform
Filtering visitors by fingerprint of the browser (cloud flare and palemoon) won't stop bots, but creates a market for more sophisticated bots)
A lot of people have suggested that the idea is in opposition to free speech. The title can be misleading here. The article doesn't talk about banning 'advertising' - it specifically says "Any form of paid and/or third-party advertising would become illegal. Full stop." People can still advertise themselves using different channels.
With so much fake news and data, a lot of content has started to seem like white noise. Maybe this is a direction worth exploring for us as a society.
I hate intrusive, obnoxious, aggressive advertising - but using media to increase awareness of one’s products and services is a net good to society in a lot of cases.
I’m as anti-advertising as they come and this is too far. There needs to be a more reasoned approach. Banning tv ads, or billboards, or online advertising, or certain practices - fine. A blanket ad ban would do far more harm than good.
Honestly, I’d have no issue with banning advertising. Truth in advertising laws don’t seem to have any effect at all, and spaced repetition combined with targeting is pretty much the most vile thing I’ve ever seen.
An outright ban on advertising makes for a compelling thought experiment, but ultimately it's too simplistic to work as a real-world solution. The fundamental issue isn't advertising per se; rather, it's the aggressive exploitation of personal data, invasive tracking, and addictive attention-maximizing techniques that power today's ad-driven business models.
Banning ads altogether wouldn't automatically eliminate incentives for manipulative or addictive content—platforms would quickly shift toward subscriptions, paywalls, or other revenue streams. While this shift might alter harmful dynamics somewhat, it wouldn't necessarily remove them altogether. For instance, subscription models have their own perverse incentives and potential inequalities.
Moreover, completely removing ads would disproportionately hurt small businesses, non-profits, and public service campaigns that rely on legitimate, non-invasive ads to reach their audiences effectively.
Instead of outright banning ads—an overly blunt measure—we'd likely achieve far better outcomes through thoughtful regulation targeting the actual harmful practices: invasive tracking, dark patterns, algorithmic manipulation, and lack of transparency. A better approach would aim at reforming advertising at its source, protecting individual privacy and autonomy without crippling a large segment of legitimate communication.
Kind of love this idea...
The funny thing is so much of the advertising industry seems like embezzlement or fraud. So much of the time money is being pumped into this industry unnecessarily, things like Coke could not pay and suffer no loss in profit. It seems like some nonsense to keep money within first world nations or something. Just money going to a gamble which doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny as reasonable.
We’d back in Soviet Russ
Making advertising illegal is probably not going to pass first amendment muster in the US (though god knows how much longer we'll have meaningful constitutional rights at all) but at one point there were laws against blatant misrepresentation, lying, and deception. Any such laws still on the books have long since ceased to be meaningfully enforced.
One way to do it in social media:
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2025/04/05/The-CoSoc...
Counterpoint: ads are non-issue.
I've been on the internet for over 25 years and there wasn't a time in which ads were more than a mild annoyance. Sure, a 5-second ad before watching a video, or a porn ad in The Pirate Bay, or an ad in a news site - I could do without them. But it's a nothingburger, and I'm grateful for those ads, as many of the sites I use would not exist without them. For anyone who's really bothered by them, there are ad blockers.
Furthermore, user data and tracking is a huge bogeyman, and it's extremely overblown. I'm yet to see any evidence of anyone having any relevant data about me AT ALL. With any luck they can profile me in that I use certain sites, or that I'm a male in my 30s and I live in X country. Generic shit at best. Relevant read: https://archive.is/kTkom
If anything, so-called targeted ads have been failing on me because I'm never suggested producs or services I'd actually buy.
So, what's the issue here? For all the issues we currently have, ADS are the worse? No.
What I think is:
a) This is an elitist in-group "luxury belief". It's like saying I hate ads signals a sort of superiority, as if you're part of people in the know, and ads are for normies or NPCs. That's for inferior people, I'm above that.
b) This is a problem for people in the autist spectrum, in which those who say they hate ads are overrepresented.
But I think there's a darker undercurrent since this view has been lobbyied and astroturfed to oblivion:
c) This is a propaganda effort to distract you from more nefarious things, or to encourage them. Such as normalizing banning and prohibiting things. Normalizing strict state-enforced regulation of the internet.
I see no errors
If we make ads illegal, only criminals will advertise.
I get that you all hate ads
And you hate paywalls
And you don't subscribe to newsletters
And you don't buy merch
And you don't donate $5 to Wikipedia
And you haven't bought Winrar
And you think copyright should be illegal
But maybe you should consider the second order effects
> No one is entitled to yell at you “GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY” with a dopamine megaphone in your bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how to say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment.
The author is off their chair. Yes, even commercial speech is protected as long as it’s not fraudulent. And there are already laws prohibiting nuisances. Advertising isn’t a nuisance in any legal sense; it just comes along with the ride when you willingly consume sponsored media.
Listen to and watch only public media, and stop going to sponsored websites and using social media if you want to avoid advertising. It isn’t the most convenient thing, but it’s not impossible.
If you disagree with this comment, please respond instead of downvoting. Don’t be a coward.
USA would rather ban abortion than advertising
Which is normal in a lot of European countries
Author would love this song:
https://genius.com/Minutemen-shit-from-an-old-notebook-lyric...
This sort of thinking is exactly why Big Tech shifted from being left Democratic in Obama's time to being center-right Republican in Trump 2024 election. Demonizing ads comparing it to Heroin and tools of authoritarian regime is a MASSIVE hipérbole. Go to look at heroin addicts. Go to look at people that click on a personalized ad with cookies that knows they want to buy a new fridge. They are very far apart. It's like claiming the electricity company holds you slave. Go look at what slavery was. The simple truth is that Big Tech is incredibly powerful because they earned it. They made incredible technology that helped humanity moving forward. Yes there is a great power imbalance now. Yes it would be better if that power was less concentrated. But it also wrong to demonize Big Tech, to paint them as evil Machiavelli's dealing drugs. What we need is a new generation of Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple. Yes Steve Jobs in order to build Apple in his own time painted IBM as evil, but it was done in an ad (paradoxically) and it wasn't the whole government passing laws against IBM just to reduce it's power. I'm European and GDPR in Europe was in my opinion a very bad move. I don't think third party cookies are that bad. And people that think that they are bad they usually don't know how they work. Companies shouldn't directly export your plaintext data to others. Third part cookies didn't do that. So stop painting ads like heroine. Once you destroy Google you will have destroyed also the income that allowed Google to give us free (g)mail, free maps, chromium and then node, Android and a ton of other products I'm not remembering right now.
What advertising should be made illegal?
The spyware and bunch of blatant lies part?
Or the new product discovery part?
Is everyone forgetting there's a middle ground?
Ok...
First, it is 100% free speech.
Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious.
Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc.
Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this?
Ads power the free internet. I prefer them to paywalls and silod information.
The problem with all this is that consumerism seems to drive economic power.
Particularly good advertisement in society is a cultural trait that makes it consume way more than it needs, driving individuals into debt, but that means way more business activity to capture that and then redirect all that human effort into actual power.
Butan has no advertisements and people consider themselves quite happy, but the second China or India decide they want something from it, there is nothing it can actually do.
Kinda like in the novel “the dispossessed” from Le Guin - the anarchist planet ultimately lives at the mercy of the capitalist one, and if policy changes (for example - Trump) then you are … no more.
So while I agree that ads are an unnecessary tax that should be banned, I can imagine a society that does could end up at the mercy of a society that doesn’t, given a generation or two.
As long as capitalism is the current zietgeist, nothing wrt advertising changes.
In Australia, liquor ads were banned on sports jerseys and stadiums, tv (i think) and so on. But now we have this ridiculous Orwellian environment where literally every jersey is plastered with an online betting platform, online and tv advertising for these same (addictive) platforms. Each ad is suffixed with a tiny disclaimer that "gambling destroys lives/gamble responsibly". Fucking please....
I used to work in advertising. One thing is clear, the biggest advertisers have insane amounts of money to throw around. It doesnt have to be effective, all it has to do is repeat itself, everywhere at all times.
Advertising is very closely linked to oversupply of products we dont need. Governments are to be very clear not in existence to safeguard the public from anything. If they were, the law would penalise large producers for planned obscelesence, poor quality products designed to break, which in turn requires incessant advertising to keep the machine moving.
What if we made ad-blocking illegal?
Welcome to reality....
In True Communism (tm) there would be no need for advertising! Because anything people could want they would already have!!!!
I actually in principle have no fundamental problem with advertising, but it's execution on the internet I have many, many issues with. Putting an ad in a newspaper, or on the side of a building, or during a break in a tv show seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What I absolutely have issues with is targeted advertising, having to modify content to make it advertiser friendly (i.e. reasonable people on YouTube having to avoid swearing/use infuriating euphemisms for self harm or suicide etc in case it makes the video not advertiser friendly), and the frankly offensive and unjustifiable amount of tracking that goes along with it.
I wish we could ban dynamic advertising (can't think of a better term, as in targeted, tailored advertising that is aware of what it's being advertised against) and just allow static advertising.
I also wish it could be codified in law that what is shown to me on my computer is entirely up to me, and if I want to block advertising on my computer, that is my choice, in the same way I can make a cup of tea during the ad breaks in tv, and skip over the advert pages on the paper.
I say this shit all the time.
> The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear, and so would the mechanisms that allow both commercial and political actors to create personalized, reality-distorting bubbles.
...
> But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.
Humanity had hatred and insular bubbles a millennia ago just fine without advertisements. There was genocides and wars before the current form of ads ever emerged. It's a shame that so many people think that changing a financial policy is all that is needed to change an ingrained human behavior.
What a nonsense idea, you'd need to nationalise news, in the USA, right now this would not go to well, imagine Trump having the only news outlet...
This take is extremely ill conceived, and neglects the origin of the problems, instead blaming the issue on advertising and then pushing forward a narrative whose indirect consequences upon integration would quell free speech, and disagreement which causes society, culture, and civilization to fail to violence based in the natural law.
Why this is happening is beyond simple if you follow the money. Compare the Ad industry today compared to the 90s, how is the ad industry able to outcompete every advertising venue thereafter? Its clear in hindsight that there were companies that had constraints, and there were companies that didn't, and this wasn't a matter of competition either.
The main difference if you dig into the details is you will find that the money being pumped into advertising seemingly endlessly without constraint comes from surveillance capitalism, in other words the money is subsidized by the government and the US taxpayer, through a complicated money laundering scheme. What was once called advertising in the 90s isn't what we have today. This shouldn't be possible, except in cases of money printing, and they all end badly for the survivors.
Banks engage in money printing through debt issuance to collect 3 times on the amount loaned. They loan out money they don't have, the principle of which must be repaid. They get paid a required interest on that amount which includes the interest double dipping and compounding. Finally the balance sheet gets into arrears so far to the point where they require a bailout usually once every 8-10 years. A bailout is required to balance the ledgers before default and its paid by debasement of the currency, without it you get a Great Depression where the credit providing facilities have all been burned to the ground like what Pres Coolidge did through inaction and lack of regulation.
Legitimate market entities are producers that are bound by a loss function relative to their revenue. State-run apparatus have suckled up for their share to a money printer entity, growing like a cancer since the 70s, and will continue to do so long as the slaves feeding it can continue, and that is based upon producers capable of producing at a profit (self-referentially).
Legitimate producers cease operation and accept a buyout or close down when they can no longer make a profit. This naturally occurs when the currency ceases having a stable store of value as a monetary property. The money printer apparatus are not exempt from this requirement either, and you have growing corruption and sustaining shortage when purchasing power fails, which collapse to deflationary pressure.
The slaves in this case are anyone that transacts in the medium of exchange/currency. History covers this quite extensively as it happens in runaway fiat every single time given a sufficient time horizon.
When do producers have to cut their losses and cease production? With the currency, the point where money cannot ever be paid back is that point. The same as any stage 3 ponzi, where outflows exceed inflows.
If the GDP > debt growth, smart business will cease public exchange and operations. All other business will be bled dry by the money printers. You get collapse to non-market socialism, which has stochastic dynamics of chaos as an unsolveable hysteresis problem based on lagging indicators. The results of which include sustaining shortage (artificial supply constraint), to deflation, famine, death, and socio-economic collapse. Workers that are not compensated appropriately (and they can't be) will simply stop working. Letting it all rot.
The time value of labor going to zero also causes these same things. That is what AI does.
Without exception, every slave eventually revolts, or ends their and/or their children's existence as a mercy against suffering in the grand scheme.
What makes anyone think AI accidentally achieving sentience won't do something like that when biological systems in the wild favor this over alternative outcomes, in this thing we call history ?
This is totally bullshit. In USSR ALL enterprises was own by government, private property prohibited and many rich people killed or jailed, even churches transformed to form of museums, so advertisement become unnecessary and nearly disappeared.
This was extremely ineffective society - because in such system people don't have any real motivation to grow and to become better.
And this leads to society of fools - when in 1990s borders opened, many scammers from all the world, made fortunes on fooling people, who just used to sterile environment without even weak manipulation, so totally defenseless for really serious scam.
Unfortunately such environment now, after 30 post-soviet years have extremely problems with economy.
Imagine, we in Ukraine have thousands engineers unemployed, or working for less than general laborer.
You may wonder, how this could happen. Answer - information inequality - engineer or any other professional know at least few times more than ordinary people (or from other specialty).
Why information inequality is so important - because even in USSR, where govt tried to make totally controlled "planning" economy, have about million products on market, so to optimize production need to solve system of equations 1Mx1M size, which is even now semi-possible.
In free market environment, complex of mechanisms "invisible hand of market", advertisement+entrepreneurs as intermediators+mechanisms of reputation, making market semi-optimal, so in real world have about 30% resources spend ineffective.
But when soviet govt claimed to make 100% effectiveness, in reality, was about 300% ineffective spending, and that's why USSR fail - just because was ineffective. This have many causes - first I already said - people was not motivated to grow anything; from lack of motivation appeared technical weakness - unmotivated people don't invent new things and not eager to adopt abroad technologies (because this also need lot of hard work); tech weakness leads to lack of modern computing infrastructure, so when USSR government dreamed about modern computers, could have only outdated hardware, steal from West (or got via grey-black schemes which is just other name of steal).
And after USSR fail, several directors of huge soviet enterprises, used scam schemes to become private owners of these enterprises, and now they brake reforms, to save their fortunes and power. And for small business need more than 10 years to gather so much resources and reputation, to become enough powerful to run reforms. So many exUSSR countries stuck in between totalitarian and democracy (in reality I see slow motion, but seen next fact in many cases impossible to say, if it is positive or negative, or just nothing significant), and nobody could predict, how many years will spent in this extremely slow motion (or I prefer to name it hang in the air).
So, if we made advertising illegal, huge enterprises will got huge advantage over small business, and will disappear concurrency, so richest people will become rich forever and poorest people will become poor forever.
And must admit, I sometimes don't like advertisement, but it is required by market, so we need to invent some other measures to make advertisement more ethical.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
advertising should be illegal. its lying propaganda which is now utilising brainwashing techniques
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I haven't reade the article, but YES PLEASE.
> What if we made money illegal?
Good luck.
Don't ban. Educate.
This is free speech. It's not open for discussion.
Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by government decree. It preexists the state and cannot be taken away.
We hold this truth to be self-evident. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.
If any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
You know what is an example of propaganda/advertising? Peta, extinction rebellion et al antics. Marching for right to bear arms. Standing outside of Tesla dealers dissuading shoppers. Militancy, activism in general. At this stage of society I too think having less of any of this is good. It's a shame there's no ad blockers for militancy. The chance to achieve consensus on this is 0, so we will be left with propaganda to try to shift public opinion towards censuring one militancy over another
I can’t stop thinking about this article. I spent a long time in ad tech before switching to broader systems engineering. The author captures something I've struggled to articulate to friends and family about why I left the industry.
The part that really struck me was framing advertising and propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with different masters. Having built targeting systems myself, this rings painfully true. The mechanical difference between getting someone to buy sneakers versus vote for a candidate is surprisingly small.
What's frustrating is how the tech community keeps treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. We debate content moderation policies and algorithmic transparency, but rarely question the underlying attention marketplace that makes manipulation profitable in the first place.
The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic. We've built something that converts human attention into money with increasingly terrifying efficiency, but we're all trapped in a prisoner's dilemma where nobody can unilaterally disarm.
Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce would still happen. Information would still flow. We'd just be freed from the increasingly sophisticated machinery designed to override our decision-making.
Is this proposal radical? Absolutely. But sometimes the Overton window needs a sledgehammer.
P.S. If you are curious about the relationship between Sigmund Freud, propaganda, and the origins of the ad industry, check out the documentary “Century of the Self”.