Live data from Hacker News

What if we made advertising illegal?

simone.org

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this dynamic in tech all the time: "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is and we understand scaling it is immensely valuable and fundamentally changes everything. "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X anyway, don't tread o…

Out of all of HN’s biases, the violent hatred of advertising is by far one of the most misguided. Human attention is scarce. Demand for that attention is endless. Scarcity + demand creates a natural market by default, meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to disrupt it entirely (vs just regulating with guardrails). Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism usually ends up worse than any downsides of the…

What is a "natural market"?

Please explain with examples from nature.

Your argument begs the question. Attention is indeed scarce, but that's because ad tech has created an attention economy.

Assuming that advertising is the best use of human attention is - how can I put this politely? - really quite eccentric.

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#742
post #262

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 p…

> The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic.

Which was obvious at every step of the journey. Google was, is, and always will be an advertising platform. Advertising was, is, and always will be the manipulation of human emotions and desires for the purpose of corporate profit. This is not a good thing! How did you ever justify this to yourself?

I’ve had recruiters push the poker machine jobs, the ad jobs, the high frequency trader jobs… You get to look at the business before taking the job; work for better people. No shade on anyone who’s there because they just need a job, but if you have a choice, pick something better.

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this dynamic in tech all the time: "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is and we understand scaling it is immensely valuable and fundamentally changes everything. "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X anyway, don't tread o…

Out of all of HN’s biases, the violent hatred of advertising is by far one of the most misguided. Human attention is scarce. Demand for that attention is endless. Scarcity + demand creates a natural market by default, meaning you must use brutal authoritarianism to disrupt it entirely (vs just regulating with guardrails). Disrupting natural markets with authoritarianism usually ends up worse than any downsides of the…

Quite an interesting idea tbh, however if you want to frame it in commodity terms then you should also admit that currently, this very valuable commodity is taken from its owners without their consent. You could compare it to e.g. human labour, maybe: sure, there will always be a market for it, yet we allow labour to be extracted from people only in a heavily regulated framework and don't just let it be taken by force from them. Or property: there is a near infinite demand for physical objects, yet when I own a physical object you nevertheless can't just take it from me. So it should be with our attention.

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine a world without advertising I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be selectively enforced against political enemies. And in all cas…

What you can do relatively easily is to control the physical format of advertising. For example, consider how rare "billboards" are outside of the USA. Or towns in various places that prohibit signage that is not in the same plane as the edge of the building (i.e. no sticky-outy signs). Or for that matter, consider Berlin, which has banned all non-cultural advertising on public transportation. Yes, there's some edge…

> Or for that matter, consider Berlin, which has banned all non-cultural advertising on public transportation.

Why have I not heard about this. Is this a recent thing?

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#745
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.

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#746
post #262

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 p…

> imagine a world without advertising I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be selectively enforced against political enemies. And in all cas…

I don’t think that’s the issue. Whatever advertising is, it’s clearly been industrialized by technology in ways that

a) did not exist 100 years ago

b) can be limited in effectiveness by removing that technology

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine a world without advertising I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be selectively enforced against political enemies. And in all cas…

> It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? Seems you're insistent on letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is precisely why judges exist. It would not be difficult to define Ads well enough to cover 99% of current advertising. Sure there will be gray areas. Advertisers will adapt. But it would make it profoundly more expensive, difficult and risky. I'm not sure I understand a concrete economi…

A sign on the front of a store is advertising. If we ban these how will you even know what stores there are downtown?

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#748
post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with almost all your points, but this is just false: > Products need marketing. You don't just magically know what to buy. We don’t need marketing, we need information. Objective information, that would be easier to come by in the absence of manipulative marketing.

You are defining marketing as manipulative. In fact, marketing is just "bringing a product to market". For example, it includes having booths at a trade show. The line between objective information and "puff" is impossible to draw. I googled "strollers" and got: Joolz strollers with ergonomic design, manoeuvrability, compactness, and storage space. compare and choose your favourite Joolz pushchair model. Is this mani…

> Is this manipulation or information?

Looks like manipulation. Information would be a sheet of parameters relevant to the product. The cheapest and most expensive strollers can be claimed to be "Compact" and "Ergonomic".

Re: What if we made advertising illegal?

#749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine a world without advertising I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable. It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be selectively enforced against political enemies. And in all cas…

I see this dynamic in tech all the time: "We'd like to pay/invest in you tremendous amounts of money to make X more efficient": yes, absolutely we know what X is and we understand scaling it is immensely valuable and fundamentally changes everything. "We'd like to regulate X, making it safer, and therefore harder or even impossible to do": that's ridiculous, you could always do X, what even is X anyway, don't tread o…

One reason why the definition is more important when it comes to outlawing behavior is that when you get it wrong you are actually preventing people from doing something that is important and valuable to them.

Ironically this is something lawyers and judges would pick up on immediately. You need an underlying principle of harm that can be applied consistently.

Post reply on HN