One would never reach zero. And it would be challenging both to define and police laws against advertising. But to get to a world with drastically less advertisements than today seems doable.
So we want the government to decide what is advertising and propaganda? Is telling people about the wrongs of government propaganda? Is going door to door about have you made Jesus the head of your life propaganda?
The point is that advertising and propaganda are indistinguishable. Going door-to-door to talk about Jesus is the same as going door-to-door to talk about vacuums, but neither is anything like roadside billboards or programmatic advertising. We can ditch the billboards and the programmatic advertising and get a better world, even if some advertisers and propagandists still go door-to-door. At least when it’s door-to-door the advertiser/propagandist has to really work for it, and you have the option of just not opening the door.
If I publish a website of my views, do I have to publish opposing views? Do religious channels and sites have to publish pro choice opinions? Do you have to publish opposing views about vaccines that they cause autism? Do you also have to give equal time to people who believe the “election was stolen”?
So now you’re okay with the government telling every single publisher that they must publish content they don’t agree with?
The Fairness Doctrine was only for broadcast TV under the theory that the people owned the airwaves. Also this is not 1980. Anyone can get worldwide distribution of their ideas out.
If I have to seek it out, say a product catalog or a website, it really isn't marketing or advertising.
The "problem" is that everything is vying for our attention because the internet made it vastly cheaper for any random joe blow to force a set of pixels in front of our faces.
That's the distinction. If I can't ignore it, then it shouldn't be legal. Companies should have no right to my attention.
Yeah? The government defines what is murder, defines what is tax evasion, and defines tons of other stuff already? Some states already have laws against billboards?
How would you like the government deciding some cause they didn’t agree with is advertising?
If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion?
And how would that work over the Internet? Are you going to block foreign websites?
I can give you a real world example. Florida requires age verification for porn sites. Sites not based in the US including the ones owned by MindGeek just ignored it.
> If you live in a conservative state, what are the chances that they say advocacy for Planned Parenthood is advertising and say that advocacy for pro-life is freedom of religion?
A nonsensical argument. You might as well ask how "Oh yeah, you want to ban murder? Well how would you like it if conservative states say that abortion is murder, and killing negroes isn't? Clearly outlawing murder is unworkable."
Great job pointing out that laws can be misinterpreted by motivated judges, I guess we should get rid of all the laws then to make sure that doesn't happen.
Whether I commit murder is objective. Speech is always subjective.
Even if abortion is murder is objective based on the state laws. We see right now how government controlling speech that it doesn’t like is harmful.
Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily seeing the current abuses of power and how it is used to punish people the government doesn’t like.
We should limit the power of the government to only punishing things that infringe on our rights and our person.
There are many different ways humans can die and many different types of human involvement in sequence of events. This involvement is sometimes characterized as a causal contributor to death. Responsibility in a related death, is not objective. You are simply incorrect.
>Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power
I'm amazed people pretend like corporations having immense power isn't a problem at all. I want the government to reduce the power of corporations to invasively and pervasively manipulate me through intrusive advertisements.
I mean, roe v wade clearly shows it is not objective at all. There's always edge cases in life. Abortion aside, also consider the context of self defense vs. Meditated murder with a plan to hide the body.
>Again I’m amazed that people want to give the government more power unnecessarily s
Well we've done a horrible job self-regulating. This abuse of power also teaches us that ideas without enforcement is just daydreaming. If that all you wanted to do in this article, go ahead.
So you put American companies at a disadvantage and that means companies could just advertise on foreign websites. Are you going to block those websites? Again we see it happening today, the American porn websites are losing money to foreign websites owned by MindGeek.
Why wouldn’t the same happen to more mainstream sites.
Do we also ban Netflix and other streaming services from having an ad tier? Do we make all search engines and other content providers for pay?
How do broadcast companies make money without advertising? Do we want the government funding and controlling content?
American websites implement GDPR even though that's an EU law. Websites that are used across geopolitical boundaries will invariably follow US law. There will certainly be a few exceptions, but if the law is written like the GDPR, then they'd be illegally violating the law.
And services like Netflix losing an ad supported tier is just like... Netflix in 2021. I fail to see that as alarming.
And how does broadcast Tv work in your no ad supported TV world? Would everyone have to pay for Google for search? Could you not get any news if you couldn’t pay for it?
Websites that do not have any European presence could care less about EU law. I just gave a real world example of what’s going on in the US right now. Florida has a law that says porn sites must have age verification. Xvideos completely ignores the law.
But back to Google, if it weren’t ad supported, does that mean minors couldn’t use it or the poor? Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government.
Would people he don’t have home internet access who can now go to the library not use Google if they don’t pay for it?
Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by "viewers like you"? And historically TV advertising was banned until the FCC allowed it. And you do realize that news used to be paid? You'd be surprised that... people used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy.
Really, you're trying to imply that society wouldn't function without advertising- when it was the default until the last 100 years or so. Perhaps you should watch Mad Men on HBO, which depicts the 1960s era when sociopaths of the advertising industry decided to redefine advertising as a necessity of modern living.
> Right now, poor and even homeless people can get smart phones for free with data (or use WiFi) from the government.
If the government is willing to subsidize Google Android phones running on a network like AT&T or T-Mobile for poor people... what's to stop the government from also subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well? It's not like Google's gonna care much about poor people, people who are that poor tend not to be good advertising targets anyways. The juicy ad market is elsewhere. Similarly, have you gone to any library recently? Libraries already offer stuff like access to a NYTimes or WSJ subscription, or even things like LinkedIn Learning. Adding Google to the list as another subscription that they offer to library card holders for free is a nonissue.
Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed into being unable to visualize a society without advertising.
Frankly, nobody gives a shit if EU or whatever websites continue to do their thing. US porn sites have negative political capital anyways, XVideos continuing operate as before impacting the US porn industry would make any hypothetical law EASIER to pass, not more difficult.
> Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by viewers like you.
I’m old enough to know that even in the 80s Mr. Rogers was in front of congress asking the government not to cut funding because some conservative congressmen were opposed to some of the content.
And the actual phrase was “… and viewers like you”
PBS always had corporate “sponsors” they announced during pre or post show credits just like NPR does today. Corporate “sponsors” are just advertisers by a different name.
How do you think the current administration would think about PBS supporting gay pride month or Black history month? Would the current government help fund HBCU libraries or would they come under their “anti DEI” crusade?
> And historically TV advertising was banned until the FCC allowed it
This is not true. The earliest TV and radio broadcasting companies were advertising supported.
> You'd be surprised that... people used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy.
And those papers still had advertising. The subscriptions never paid the total cost of newspaper publications
> when it was the default until the last 100 years or so
Coca Cola has been big in advertising since it was first incorporated in 1880s. Are you saying there was no advertising 100 years ago on media that didn’t exist like the radio, TV and internet?
> what's to stop the government from also subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well
You mean the same government today that is rewriting history, purging government websites and has a list of words that agencies can’t say? You want that government having more control of private speech? Or would you prefer the last government who also pressured private entities not to publish things that went against the government narrative about Covid? Even though now we know some of the things that they suppressed was true.
I don’t mean the anti-vax stuff. I mean the government wouldn’t admit for the longest that immunity from the vaccine waned and you needed another shot after six months even though other government’s health agencies started recommending them.
> Adding Google to the list as another subscription that they offer to library card holders for free is a nonissue.
And then also those sites that Google is linking to? What are the chances that the government allows libraries to pay for content that the government disagrees with?
Would the current government pay for access to Fox News and The Guardian or just Fox News? Today the government is withholding funding from colleges that don’t toe the line and says things it disagrees with. Oh yeah and deporting protesters who are here legally. This is the government that you want paying for and controlling content?
> Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed into being unable to visualize a society without advertising.
Well seeing that you are factually wrong about history and ignoring what the government is doing right now when it comes to making sure that only its views are heard….
And I’m bringing up porn because porn websites are regulated today heavily in some states and one of the most popular sites overall which is not hosted in the US is completely ignoring it.
As far as sites with negative capital, in todays client, any site that is pro-Palestine, LGBT, minorities, anti Musk/Trump etc not only has negative capital, it’s actually been pressured by the government and news organizations are already capitulating.
> I’m old enough to know that even in the 80s Mr. Rogers was in front of congress asking the government not to cut funding because some conservative congressmen were opposed to some of the content.
Exactly. Congress funding something tends to produce better work than corporate advertising funded stuff. Look at NASA, or national science grants, or Mr Rodgers as a comparison. Subscription funded media and Congress funded media being available, are you seriously saying Marlboro sponsored shows are better as an alternative?
"1941: The FCC lifts its ban on TV advertising, and the first commercial airs"
> And those papers still had advertising. The subscriptions never paid the total cost of newspaper publications
No, that was not the case until the advent of the penny press of the 1830s. Before the 1 cent penny press, standard newspapers cost 6 cents per paper and was not mostly funded by advertising, although they had small amounts of advertisements. They would have survived just fine if advertising was banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_press
"The main revenue for the penny press was advertising while other newspapers relied heavily on high-priced subscriptions to finance their activities."
> 1880s
I would consider that roughly "100 years or so" ago, within the correct amount of sigfigs. It's certainly closer to 100 years ago than 200 years ago. And even if you did bring up examples from 150 or 199 years ago- so what? The point is that advertising started its dominance during this century or so, quibbling over a few decades is pointless.
> You mean the same government today that is rewriting history, purging government websites and has a list of words that agencies can’t say? You want that government having more control of private speech?
Yes. Unashamedly.
Your line of thinking is how we got Citizens United. Your line of thinking is imprudently painting all government action under the same brush, where state propaganda is conflated with things like banning money in politics or banning billboards. Hint: banning advertising looks a lot more like an anti-Citizens United good thing, than some 1984 Ministry of Truth.
> Would the current government pay for access to Fox News and The Guardian or just Fox News?
