What if we made advertising illegal?

It'll get replaced with something even more annoying that isn't called advertising but is functionally identical.

People make things then talk about them. It's normal.

A careful read of this piece should show you why advertising was invented in the first place and why it's fundamental to commerce.

Unless you want to go back to buying from your neighbor or buying only what your limited circle of friends can recommend you?

> What if we made all advertising illegal? It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public discourse.

Local jurisdictions have restricted or even forbidden outdoor advertising since it was invented.

I LOVE this idea and advocate for it in private convos all the time. Banning ads and enabling (micro-)payments for accessing content that is currently ad-supported would be an unimaginable game-changer.

I think one way to look at this is that--why are Meta and Google so successful? Because they are basically an index fund on the world economy right. If you want to sell soup in Jakarta you advertise on Instagram. If you want to sell paint in France you advertise on Youtube. If you want to sell T-Shirts in Boston you advertise on Facebook

So then the flipside is that without ads these sellers now have to complete head on with giant companies who have all the brand recognition. Now you need to somehow make your Etsy store viral instead of just putting it in Facebook ads

The best concert I ever went to was one I only knew about from a TV commercial. Somewhere along the way I started blocking ads and commercials aggressively and in hindsight I've noticed that (for example) there's fewer movies/concerts I'm seeing because I've cut off a mechanism for learning what's out there for subjects I'm not in the habit of actively researching.

After 30 years I've stopped watching baseball altogether because the announcers read tiny ads between pitches and at-bats and I can't stand it.

I accidentally let myself get too extreme about deciding that ads are evil. Not surprising I regret that, given the nature of extremism. For better or worse ads are a kind of information, and I should remember that I'm an adult and can tell the difference between the facts and opinions there in.

We could just start making it illegal to advertise to children. Without age verification, it's just a burden of proof with the advertiser that their ad isn't targeting children and a ban on age specific target groups for ad platforms.

As always there is also the gradual sunset option: slap a tax on it and increase over time.

- That's easier to get past the lobbies.

- It still surfaces unexpected consequences but reduces impact.

I despise advertising, but anecdotally, I can think of three ads in the past week that informed me about products I didn’t know existed but would enjoy. I also learned about multiple new games releasing, sporting events that were happening, etc. The claim that ads are not at all informative is incorrect.

That being said, I also block as many ads as possible from my life, so the few I actively notice tend to be more noticeable.

Cities have banned billboards. Sao Paulo did it, so did parts of London: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

Hard to quantify the benefits, but I think anyone other than advertisers would say it's a vast improvement. I cannot objectively prove that these cities, public spaces are more beautiful without ads, but all of us know that it is true. Then again you have places like times square where ads are integral to character of the place.

i am in favor of this. of course, in America, that would mean no 1st Amendment which I am okay with doing away with as it has served its purpose.

I would say the exception would be one must speak with 100% certainty. No 'virtually no side effects' and none of this 'best burger in 200 miles'.

Imagine an empty cafeteria. You and your friend enter, get your meal, sit down, and enjoy quiet conversation. Then two other people do the same thing and, because your voices reverberate in the room, you and your friend begin to talk a little louder. As more people enter, the ambient volume increases until no one can hear themself think, never mind hear the person across the table from them.

That is how advertising seems to me. If only one person hired false witnesses, their hires might rightly be consigned to the eighth circle of Hell where they belong. But because everyone hires false witnesses, it's become an operating expense necessary to overcome the ambient lying.

I liked it a whole lot better when advertising pharmaceuticals and legal services were still illegal, like it was for the better part of the 20th century.

It had always been unethical since at least the 19th century, before it was ever regulated overwhelmingly, so the regulations were mainly just codifying the common respectability that was already established from the most honest business operators.

Even if tobacco was allowed in ways that are no longer OK.

I used to know one of the great ad execs from Mama Bell and he told me nothing happens in this world until a person decides to trade a dollar for something.

How do they decide such things? How do people become aware of what things are available for purchase?

Another thing he said was that they knew half of their ad spend was "wasted" on people who would never buy what you have to sell.

The feeling I get from the author is that targeted advertising is the problem, which also has a 50%+ waste factor (due in large part to fraud). I suspect it is unlikely all the complexities of contemporary marketing and advertising are worth it.

Also worth considering to what extent the author's website is a form of advertisement itself.

sorry, not buying it

> Think about what's happened since 2016: Populists exploit ad marketplaces, using them to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and deliver tailored messages to susceptible audiences.

I'm neither a fan of advertising nor Trump, but this reads like yet another patronizing think piece about how the wrong people get a vote and it's terrible that they use it in ways of which the author does not approve. "If only there were some way to control what these people say and hear, we would not have such problems as Trump."

The problem with controlling the flow of information, besides being morally reprehensible, is that it leads inevitably to ignoring problems that do not directly affect or concern the gatekeepers, like rural economic devastation. As well, these censorious advocates always imagine the mechanisms of control will only be used by people they agree with, never imagining the mechanisms of control will be used by their political opponents.

The author later reveals the agenda:

> “But it's 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.

A fair and honest reckoning with the question would acknowledge the problems such a ban would introduce with free speech, not simply dismiss them as he does here. If you make a thing, and then you tell people about the thing, then you transgress against the advertising ban. The idea is nonsense.