Mildly Interesting

19713 readers

1344 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

marcar@lemmy.world

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

1386

What If We Made Advertising Illegal? (simone.org)

submitted 1 day ago by sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

381 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The idea feels like sci-fi because you're so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.

The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn't been valid for decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

That does not make equating graffiti and dumping hazardous waste equivalent. The false equivalence was you comparing graffiti to illegal river dumping. There’s no amount of sophistry that will make your claim logically valid.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not being sophisticated, I'm trying to keep you on track.

If you want to have a different argument about whether or not advertising is deserving of jail sentences, steep GDPR level fines, slaps on the wrist, or nothing, that's fine, we can have that one.

But this reply chain was about whether or not it's possible to make advertising illegal, which it is.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I accused you of sophistry not of being sophisticated. You should look that word up to avoid this situation next time.

This part of the chain is me calling out. your false equivalence as you compared graffiti to river dumping which you keep trying to claim isn’t invalid and now you are trying to “keep me on track” because you seemingly cannot admit you made a terrible analogy.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This part of the chain is me calling out. your false equivalence as you compared graffiti to river dumping which you keep trying to claim isn’t invalid

Because I never claimed they were equivalent, I said that river dumping laws are an example of how to make something illegal, after your dumb ass claimed it was impossible to make advertising illegal because it's been around for a long time.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And the fakse equivalence is we were talking about graffiti at that point. Hence the false equivalence between them. We have had ads like billboards for thousands of years in some places. Anywhere you find a whole bunch of people you find ads for the extra stuff people have. The only times when this isn't true is when no one has extra stuff they don't need.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

So do you work for the marketing industry or is it a loved one of yours?