We’re removing ads from Plato

How does one know what will ‘waste someone’s time’ without asking?

Perhaps the product will save someone’s time.

For most of my life, I thought wristwatches were a pointless anachronism, since the time is visible on so many screens. I held this opinion without having had the experience of owning an analog watch.

Recently, I have come to understand that a watch benefits me enormously, and saves me a lot of time and stress.

I wish someone had articulated the benefits of a watch to me decades ago. It’s one of the pieces of advice I’d give to my 18 year old self.

This would have been valuable information, paid or not.

-- even under the veneer of politely asking, for the same reason that there any other number of things you can politely ask to do but should know better than to ask to do

Clearly true for some kinds of advertising, but not obviously true for all kinds.

I can see this as an a explanation for why many kinds of advertising are inconsiderate, but I don’t see an ethical argument.

-- and didn't even think the share the profit with me (at a minimum with the majority share being mine,

You can always decline an offer you don’t like.

In my watch example, I’d be happy for the salesman to have received a commission or even a tip from me if I had known how much it would benefit me.

Again - I am understanding your preference, but there is no ethical case here.

> since clearly you value your time less than I value mine, otherwise you wouldn't be giving me an advertising pitch).

I don’t see an ethical or a logical argument here.

> Your scenario has the appearance, more or less, of a not especially pushy door to door salesman. Don't knock on my door. Leave me alone.

This is reducing my example to a strawman rather than making an ethical argument.

> You know no one wants their door knocked on. Leave everyone alone.

This is obviously true for straw man inconsiderate salespeople. But obviously false as a generalization about all advertising.

I am not disputing that most advertising is compromised - I said 99% above.

What I am asking for is an ethical argument as to why all advertising is unethical.

I don’t think you have responded to that request.

That was fully disclosed in the hypothetical offer.

Why is it unethical?

> For society at large: advertising amplifies the speech of the rich, which is inherently antidemocratic.

It does amplify the voices of the rich, but you are making it sounds like it only amplifies the speech of the rich, which is not true.

It amplifies the speech of anyone who’s business is profitable and who chooses to invest in advertising, regardless of whether they are rich or not.

That is fundamentally democratic.

It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to restrict people’s speech in general, however much money they have.

To prevent advertising, you’d have to police what the poor could say, in case they were caught taking money to say nice things about the products of rich people’s companies.

I see legitimate criticism of capitalist wealth accumulation feedback loops (which could be fixed e.g. with a wealth tax) in what you are saying, but no valid argument that advertising is inherently unethical.