this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
1183 points (98.3% liked)

Mildly Interesting

19685 readers
1900 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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 minutes ago

Cool idea but we live under the violent imposition of capitalism.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I would argue that what this article is advocating for isn't a definitive end to advertisement per se. Truthfully that would be impossible.

What we truly need are iron clad privacy laws that impose unbreakable regulations with destructive fines when violated by companies and organizations.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

"We need a large group of ideologically committed bureaucrats willing to impose policy in the face of a defiant, intractable established opposition" is simultaneously true and not terribly helpful, unless you can show where these people are coming from.

Like, we've seen instances of this happen before. Elon's DOGE is a great current example of a group of ideologically dedicated barn burners. The OG FBI was another great example of a department effectively founded to militantly oppose a well-financed and popular opposition. FDR's court appointees (and his arm-twisting with the threat to further pack the courts) could be considered another.

But who in the modern political system wants to go head-to-head with multinational corporations (other than the Trump Tariff goons, I guess)? Dems are Pro-Business. Republicans are Pro-Fascist Business. There is no leadership, outside of a handful of die-hards like AOC and Bernie - who could conceivably be both willing and able to execute on these kinds of reforms.

I wish there was. But this is just pie-in-the-sky dreaming until you can find a municipal or state government with the kind of people engaged enough to rally for it and seek promotion to the federal level on this kind of platform.

[–] InfiniteHench@lemmy.world 3 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

Adding “destructive fines” to my list

[–] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 minutes ago

If fines aren't a percentage of quarterly or annual earnings they don't matter. Ten million to a company earning billions isn't even a rounding error. But 30% of their gross. They'd respect that. They'd have to.

[–] Nerrad@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

Lets try it and see what happens. No advertising seems like a reasonable response to advertising everywhere all the time.

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 1 points 1 hour ago

YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!

This feels like I wrote it. I've hated advertising for about as long I have been aware of it but I've been telling people we should ban it since the first time I saw one of those articles about how everything was becoming clickbait because of advertising. In all that time, the ONLY thing I have ever thought of which would be a negative effect from a ban is the difficulty of getting the word out about a small business. Any other arguments are just dumb. Advertising is inherently harmful to everyone exposed to it, even the advertisers, who have to burn money to make it happen.

[–] the16bitgamer@programming.dev 13 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

As someone who had designed and attempted to sell things. On of my key takeaways has always been the lack of awareness or knowledge of my things exists.

Granted if I put a 50ft build board in the sky it wouldn’t change much. But if I did more than I did.. or am doing it would help.

I saw a metaphor in this thread comparing advertising to Smoking. But I think Sugar is a better comparison. Is it needed? No. But a little will go a long way, and some dishes wouldn’t exists without it. Add to much and it ruins the flavour of the dish and isn’t healthy for the consumer.

What is needed is balance and where everything has hyper sugar in it isn’t good for anyone. So I do we need a rethink, but eliminating it outright isn’t the solution.

[–] FreddyNO@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

Wondering about a world where advertising is only allowed on purchasing platforms. Say the consumer wants shoes. They go on this platform to search for shoes, and at that point advertisement is allowed. On this platform you can get related ads, front page ads etc. The moment you step off that platform however no ads are allowed.

The platforms can be like digital malls. Maybe owned by the government, or possibly functioning like a decentralised platform.

[–] vuks@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

I'm yoinking that sugar analogy, explains the issue really well!

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I’m definitely in favor of a ban of advertising in public spaces. Spaces that are owned by the collective ‘us’ should remain free of it. Like public squares, roadways, public transit, etc. Those should be commercial free.

A total ban would be wildly difficult and impractical. It would also widen certain gaps like the rural-urban divide. How would someone in a rural area know an iPhone exists, if the nearest store is a hundred miles away? Or other products that might be beneficial to them?

I live in a city of 160.000 people. And even here, we simply don’t have every store or every product available. Advertising broadens that horizon considerably.

[–] CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I'd take a ban on ads in private spaces, leave my house the fuck alone...i'm trying to get some rest.

[–] Litebit@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I think some kind of mix approach, example some countries ban some kind of advertising. Advertising medical prescription drugs and treatments is illegal in some countries.

Alternatively companies should pay me to watch their advertisements. Organize events to pay people to watch their advertisement.

With smart glasses AR and AI we should be able to block out all billboard, posters or it could go the opposite way glasses show all kind of adverts.. hmm. We need open source AR smart glasses with adblock.

[–] daepicgamerbro69@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

then you would have illegal advertising

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 minutes ago

It's called graffiti and it's a massive improvement over capitalist advertising.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Sao Paolo did this in 2006.

Under the cult of the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market", the prevailing ideology of neoclassical economics and the modern global economy, advertising is not necessary. Why should a firm have to convince me to buy anything if the market dictates prices and the flow of commodities? Yet here we are.

[–] fermuch@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

How did it go? Why did they stop it?

[–] Robbity@lemm.ee 22 points 9 hours ago

People talk about tech giants, but Facebook and Google are actually advertising giants. They pour much more money into their advertising than they do into r&d.

Many brands have a cost structure where, for each product sold, more money goes to advertising than to the person who actually made the product. Sometimes 2 or 3 times more. That's where the battle for attention is taking us, a place where attention from customers is worth much more than the effort of the worker.

None of this is inevitable, advertising should be heavily taxed and regulated.

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Los Angeles county vs Orange county.

LA allows billboards, OC doesn't. It just feels so much cleaner and like a breath of fresh air as you drive from LA into OC.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Same with Maine, state banned billboards. Makes it super weird when you head south and get assaulted by them in Mass

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 1 points 45 minutes ago

I don't have a problem with ads, but sometimes it does get be too much and feels a bit assaulty.

[–] peaceful_world_view@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

I refuse to watch all advertising.

[–] synicalx@lemm.ee 27 points 11 hours ago

It should be text only, purely factual, and very limited.

“We are blah, selling blah for $x, at $location”

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I would like meaningful regulation on advertising. Something to the effect of "STOP BLASTING MY FACE WITH ADS EVERY CHANCE YOU GET YOU SCUMFUCKERS"

There is a gas station nearby who runs non-stop unmutable ads. I don't go to that gas station anymore.

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago

I HATE when I am forced to watch commercials, in front of my face on the gas pump, while I am pumping gas into my vehicle. I should really get a discount on my gas for that.

I concur.

Some places limit advertising more than others. Banned on footpaths and dangerous spots. What about sales persons? How do you brand a product? I think it would have to be well defined.

I am ok with technical information being provided by a staff member. So much shit is peddled through marketing. As the scientist designing the product, I want to tell them the truth, customers love the truth, in this regard. I think banning deception and conning further would be a good way. And fuck this debt model of economics. And how about universities turn back into noble education organisations, not cocksucking psuedo-businesses.

I think govts/politicians like keeping the vague open because they use it, too. Their propaganda departments are cucked with good fact checking teams.

[–] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

You'd put a lot of people out of work.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

Any progress does that. The issue is not that there's less work, the issue is that capitalism makes that into a bad thing.

Less work should mean more leisure, more time for hobbies and passion projects, not reduced living standards.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 3 hours ago

A lot of people have jobs that aren't really necessary, and exist so that the working class doesn't revolt too hard under capitalism.

[–] midori_matcha@lemmy.world 28 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

"THE JOY OF NOT BEING SOLD ANYTHING"

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 12 hours ago

Freedom from mind flaying (advertising) !

[–] eugenia@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago

No, advertising is useful to small businesses and big. What needs to happen, is actual thoughtful regulation, as with everything else.

[–] PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 38 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 16 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I've always thought of it as waste of our mental resources. But pollution describes it even better.

Pollution specifically engineered by psychologists to maximize its impact.

Emotional pollution Mind pollution SOUL POLLUTION

[–] RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world 71 points 16 hours ago (8 children)

The economy should exist to serve real needs of the people. All that advertisement does is create a fake desire for consumption which simply wastes respurces.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Oh what a world. But it would NEVER happen. Might as well wish for super powers.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Certain types of advertising is illegal where I'm from. In particular: political adverts of any kind, and ads that target children.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›