Hacker News Reader

Comment by Beltiras | Hacker News Reader

I'm quite sure brand advertisers will not concur.

And they can go fuck off if they don't.

We're in a crisis and they want to waste energy we might need for heating households to manipulate people into buying shit they don't need?

That's not exactly a position that'll get them a lot of sympathy.

> to manipulate people into buying shit they don't need?

This is encouraged by our system, switching off screens at night won't change it. Attack the root cause not the very last symptom

Why not both? Energy can be saved here that is needlessly wasted.

It barely delays the inevitable, it's less than a drop in the bucket, everything you gain there will be instantly counteracted 10 fold somewhere else because we don't want to face reality.

But sure, let's stop using plastic straws and switch off our routers at night while we continue absolutely ravaging this planet

This is part of "ravaging our planet". And if it will be counteracted then everything is useless anyway.

Attack it on all fronts.

Of course. Same with tobacco and oil companies working against transparency for smoke health risks and climate change.

A large portion of the advertising is to get people to switch brands. A smaller portion is to get new customers. Banning advertisement increases the profits for the already established brands (for at least the short term).

Like higher quality / cheaper prices wouldn't spread by word of mouth... if anything advertising behemots are keeping actually improved products out of the spotlight by selling us whatever pays most in advertising costs, regardless of externalities.

I find that hard to believe, since most advertising is done by bigger brands.

Of course, this is why the law is needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com