This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting.
It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.
The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising is a simple and realistic idea, without any constitutional road blocks or practical objections, is what I mean when I say these comment sections are just angry bloviating with unrealistic expectations.
If you think banning all advertising is “simple” then I don’t know what to say, but there isn’t a real conversation here.
constitutional roadblock…to banning digital advertisement? please do explain!
I didn’t claim it’s easy to get it done in the real world, but it’s not a reactive/vindictive pitchfork idea. it’s really not that hard, if people wanted it we’ve banned plenty of things at the federal level in this country over the years (the hard part is of course people realizing how detrimental digital advertising is)
it’s a simple solution that’s very effective. obviously any large-scale change, to fix a large-scale problem, is not “simple” to implement, but it’s also not fucking rocket science on this one mate
you’re clearly not having a conversation in good faith. you asked, I answered, I’m done with this
Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple and effective.
These are just silly ways of thinking about the world.
please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument
p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually given it the thought you’re pretending to and still reach that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at you
You don’t need to hear my argument against it. The fact that advertising your services is free speech is well established. It’s a major challenge for movements like those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising.
Also, if you can’t see how I’ve been addressing your arguments and you think it’s all ad hominem then I don’t think there’s any real conversation to be had here. Between all the downvotes you’re collecting and the weird attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it’s ad hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at this point.
1) downvotes: you’re the one insinuating HN commenters (and presumably voters) are idiots; I’m not sure that I should care if I’m downvoted while correct. and regardless, doesn’t seem like I’m very downvoted (rather the opposite) so not sure what your point is. try making one next time!
2) freedom of speech: lol! I just want to point out I had no fucking clue that’s what you were angling for before. rather than launch into attacks as you do, I actually try to understand things. this argument doesn’t concern me at all, I was worried I wasn’t aware of something in the constitution you’d brilliantly raise
we are beyond having a conversation at this point, but if you actually raised your arguments against banning digital advertisement (freedom of speech and ??? solving real-world problems is hard?) I would have debated them on their merits, you troll
What constitutes an advertisement is not a simple proposition. eg Is a paragraph describing some facts (phrased carefully) about a product or company an advertisement?
To what effect speech would have to be controlled to enforce this, is unthinkable. While some handwaving is necessary, as anyone can agree (since even the simplest legislation would be corrupted by the US political class), "banning advertising" is not a practical goal.
it’s quite a simple definition of what is or is not advertisement. run it through real world examples, it’s trivial to say whether something is or isn’t an advertisement
as with any broad regulation there would be grey areas, continued cat and mouse games with bad actors, etc.
but it is not a remotely insurmountable obstacle to define what is and is not advertisement in relation to free speech
(as an aside it’s really funny to me anyone would consider being paid to say something free speech, but I get it)
I don't watch regular TV, anymore, so I don't know if it still is in place.
Mentioning "banning advertising" on HN is bound to draw downvotes. A significant number of HN members make money directly, or indirectly, from digital advertising.
It's like walking into a mosque, and demanding they allow drinking.
Won't end well.
At least in my state, there isn’t even a ban on advertising online gambling!! It is quite a stretch to think we could move from there to banning any kind of advertising.
It has nothing to do with the fact that a bunch of HN readers make money from ads. I don’t.
I wish we could discuss the issue here, and instead would have liked to hear from you why you think it is a pitically unrealistic proposal, and what your criteria is for seeming something politically unrealistic.
Either I misunderstand something or I'm baffled how anyone can consider that easy.
We've banned literally all tobacco ads and its... fine. I mean not for the tobacco company, but who cares?
I'm not gonna advocate making the world worse so some people stay employed. That's so counter productive. Who knows - maybe in a less shitty world, new jobs will emerge!
Of course not, clearly you just need a captured congress and an EO. Can’t be too hard to find a reason to turn Trump against Zuckerberg.
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2...
Why do you think it would be ineffective here?
I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.
They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising.
The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.
This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations.
You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.