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.

  • heavydust@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    262
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    The web has been cleaned with uBlock Origin. Doing that IRL would be great. And for every stupid counter argument (I’ve seen those on HackerNews), I don’t tolerate brain washing.

    The most stupid argument I’ve seen is from an American who said “what if you don’t know about the effects of a drug that could save your life?” Well, that’s the job of the doctor. Your society has failed if you rely on marketing to eat random chemical dangerous stuff.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      18 days ago

      When I watch a US sport, I’m blown away that the ads are all medical, banking/insurance, cars, and maybe fast food. It’s so weird.

    • The most stupid argument I’ve seen is from an American who said “what if you don’t know about the effects of a drug that could save your life?” Well, that’s the job of the doctor.

      Wow, even if we imagine some different situation where information about a new development, service or creation is needed, that’s what reviews and journalism are supposed to cover, not advertisement. (In b4: the observation that those have tragically been becoming more and more indistinguishable from advertising.)

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      In fact the pervasive drug commercials were illegal until the 1990s because why would you target the patient rather than the doctor?

    • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      17 days ago

      The most stupid argument I’ve seen is from an American who said “what if you don’t know about the effects of a drug that could save your life?”

      If only there was a system of interconnected knowledge bases where new information could be published and indexed for easy lookup… Nah what am I saying, who would have interest in such a thing…

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    It’s also a form free market distortion that actual economic conservatives should hate.

    Rather than having firms compete for who can make the best product or service, advertising instead lets them compete based on who can best psychologically manipulate the population en masse.

    It’s a “rich get richer” mechanic that any halfway competent dev would’ve patched out for balance reasons a long time ago.

    • stormeuh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      17 days ago

      It’s also such a funny contradiction: a big part of the free market model rests on the idea that well informed consumers can vote with their wallet, which should reward good businesses and punish bad ones. Yet it is very difficult to argue consumers have ever been informed enough to make this work, which is in large part due to advertising flooding communication channels with noise, and also because it is unreasonable to expect a consumer to be fully informed for the hundreds of purchases they make on a daily basis.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      You cannot get away from advertising, ever, in any society, in any financial system, at any point of time in history after tribal societie.

      It’s a concept that you can’t just “ban”, nearly all the problems we have with it today is because it’s uncontrolled and abused. The concept itself though is as unbannable as the concept of “selling” something.


      The concept:

      “trying to find someone who can use something you made”

      Is literally as old as humans moving away from tribal societies.

      You can make the best thing in the world, but if no one knows about it, it’s still useless.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        Lmao, this is absolute defeatist nonsense.

        “You’ve gotta help us doc, we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”.

        Because here’s the thing, you literally just can ban advertising. Ban billboards, ban tv Ads, ban social media advertising.

        You can still have companies publish information about their product, but that’s not what advertising is in the context of this discussion.

        • zedage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          17 days ago

          Right there are plenty of ways for businesses to get consumers to choose to use their product other than advertising which are far more conducive to consumers being able to make an informed purchase decision without being manipulated. But doing so would upend the existing power structures of who gets to sell more product, so disturbing the status quo just requires more political will than anybody really has.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            Graffiti, you say? So it was probably illegal.

            I know the rule of law is in sad shape right now, but companies still avoid doing illegal shit right out in the open, and that’s all that’s needed to cut back dramatically on advertising.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            Yeah, and it used to be legal to dump your industrial waste in the river, now it’s not.

            Laws change.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 days ago

                In both situation you make it illegal for corporations to do something, and punish them with fines and criminal sentences for executives if they’re caught doing so, leading to a decrease in that behaviour.

                So what about the situations do you see as different that makes it a false equivalency?

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 days ago

                  Painting graffiti and dumping hazardous waste in rivers are not equivalent crimes hence the false equivalence. Did you really need that clarified?

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 days ago

          No they didn’t that’s not banning advertising but that’s regulating a specific type of advertising.

          There’s a pretty big difference.

        • AugustWest@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 days ago

          And if you have the name of your business and what you sell on your store front? That’s advertising. Or a card with your name on it to hand out to customers or coupons. That’s advertising. Or logos on clothing or a sign that sits near the road that says SALE. That is advertising.

          OP was downvoted for saying the truth, regulation is important, but businesses will fail if they have no way to catch your interest.

          In fact it gets worse because small businesses will never be seen because nobody will have heard of them and everyone goes to the big store everyone already knows about.

          There is balance to be had…

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            17 days ago

            Lemmy is essentially just like Reddit at this point. It’s just a bunch of the lowest common denominator circle jerking a lack of critical thinking.

            You cannot have intelligent discussion, and group think is all that matters. Folks will not read your comment, they will find the single phrase they disagree with and hold onto it for dear life, missing the entire point.

            And then ignore the whole premise and idea behind the discussion and reply in a way that makes absolutely no sense if they had average reading comprehension…

            I miss the old Internet, where you could actually have discussions and pass ideas back and forth.

            • sinceasdf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 days ago

              This is a new phenomenon here in my experience, the cynic in me says this is ad companies trying to control and shut down the conversation as Lemmy grows. Better to have your opposition not have a realistic and feasible route to their goals.

              It reminds me of how close the US was to actual police reform before all the discussion became “defund the police entirely” like that was going to just suddenly fix everything and cause no other problems. Then the whole movement just basically evaporated.

            • AugustWest@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              17 days ago

              I was really suprised to see downvotes for your comment. It was balanced and demonstrated nuance for the concept.

              We have an example of an advertisement from 3000 BCE. This is part of the human condition of transfer of information with a hey I make a cool thing, interested in buying it?

              Now as for Lemmy, I hope it doesn’t get completely bad like reddit. The worse offenders are political or ideological posts like this one.

              I am still have good discussions in other areas, so here’s hoping.

              I miss the old internet too.

      • Zachariah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        Don’t ever—for any reason—do anything to anyone for any reason ever. No matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you’ve been… ever, for any reason whatsoever…

  • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    17 days ago

    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.

    • Lyrl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      17 days ago

      There is some awareness effect, too. If I like burgers and see a listing for a new burger place in my neighborhood, learning about a potential new place I’d like to include in my going-out rotation feels like a win. If I need a home repair and see a neighbor with a yard sign for a local contractor, that’s helpful in compiling a list of potential companies to check out.

      • Grazed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        17 days ago

        What about word of mouth? If I want to find a good place to eat, I find asking a local “hey what’s the best restaurant around here?” to yield way better results than ads.

      • onnekas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        It would be totally sufficient if those things are listed in search engines or maps. Not as ads for other searches but as actual results when you actually search for that stuff. If you like burgers it would be no problem for you to type “burger near me” into your favourite search engines once in a while if you feel like something new. Same for home repair etc.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      17 days ago

      Getting rid of advertising in a capitalist society would be devastating for all new and small businesses. Start an IT company, tow truck company, Trash removal, plumber, electrician, pest, all dead. Really any company that isnt already known would likely die, and the current large companies would be the only ones that exist. Also what counts as advertising, am I going to jail for telling my friend about a new game I tried? That’s advertising.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 days ago

        You’re absolutely right. Any small business left would beg big corporations for buyouts, for pennies on the dollar. Small time influencers would skirt it by the millions. It’d make cyberpunk fiction look tame.

        It might be better if some “standard catalog” was popularized, but still a calamity.

      • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        There used to be a business catalog book called “yellow pages”. Now there are map applications, price comparison sites, customer review sites, and keyword search engines. All of those make advertisements unnecessary.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          That’s advertising. The entire phone book was a sold adventure. Jail, prison, what is the punishment for advertising. I think people have forgotten what advertising is. I ask you you favorite movie, you answer, advertising. If you tell me Lemmy is a decent place, advertising. Any app, game, movie, music, software, hardware, car, plant, advertising. Stop talking about any object if you want ALL advertising to be illegal as the description says

    • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      17 days ago

      100%!

      The most hectic places in the world are the screens-filled streets of Tokyo and New York IMO (that’s not all the streets ofc)

      Ads try to grab your attention or show off right into your face, removing them would 100% make life more tranquil.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    17 days ago

    I’m just going to take this opportunity to remind everyone that you can and should donate to your Mastodon and Lemmy instances, even if it’s just $5 a month. That’s how we band together to keep these platforms ad-free, and I don’t know about you all, but I love that my mind isn’t being manipulated here.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking.

    It arbitrary pollutes any environment it’s conducted in, and causes secondary harms to non-participants by incentivising insecure hoarding of private information with the intent to better target individuals.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      The privacy thing isn’t necessarily part of advertising though.

      Advertising can be as complex as targeted algorithms built using harvested information and even AI bullshit, or as simple as a sign by the road saying “next right for MegaBurger” or even a small box with “Bob’s autoglass repair” in the paper.

      It’s the volume and invasiveness that’s a problem. Ads in your mailbox, ads in your inbox, ads on your streaming service and when you turn on your Roku etc etc acting as blockers to the content you’re actually looking for.

      I’m totally cool too go back to having an “autoglass” or “plumbers” section in paper and online yellow Pages etc, which target people actually looking for a service. I’m also cool with places which I subscribe to advertising me deals I might like (not so much signing me up for their shit the first time I buy from them), but the shoving crap in people’s face and information harvesting that needs to end.

      Hell, I even have a collection of saved ads that were clever and entertaining I’d share with people, yet most companies go for volume (both audible and amount) over substance

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        Also roadside advertisements for services are also acceptable, what I mean is something like Peggy Sues dinner where they’ve got some signs to let you know which off ramp to take. Frankly speaking allowing gas stations and food places to advertise off the side of the highway is pretty reasonable to me, even in the modern era with phones the usefulness of them can very either because you don’t want to look at it while driving or it’s just got no signal.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    That’d be great, but the “how” is a much harder question. What counts as advertising? Because there’s a reason Google, Meta, etc. have their fingers in so many different industries: every single thing that gets attention could be leveraged for advertising, even the act of suppressing mentions of competitors.

    Should I be able to say “X product has been great, I recommend it!” Only if I’m not being paid, you say? How could you possibly know?

    As discussed in the article, “propaganda” is illegal. So any discussion about how terrible trump is would also be illegal. Propaganda doesn’t mean false, it just means it’s trying to convince you of something. An advertisement. Heck, the article itself could be considered a form of advertising for legislation.

    It’s just so trivial of a concept to say, but the moment you spend any amount of time thinking about it, it falls apart. It’s like trying to ban the Ship of Theseus from a club.

    • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 days ago

      The phrase “ban advertising” is reductive. Different countries have different laws around ads. For example, anime shows have bumpers in them because in Japan they are required by law to clearly indicate when advertising starts and stops.

      There’s also laws against billboards, against targeting children, against specific industries, and limiting the amount of advertising available. I could see laws against targeted ads like Meta uses being implemented as well.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      What counts as advertising?

      Let’s say you ban ad breaks on TV / streams. In the early days of radio and TV they didn’t have ad breaks, the host of the show would just go on for a while about his favourite brand of cigarettes. In the modern world, pretty much any time you see a name brand in a TV show or movie, it’s because they’ve been paid for product placement.

      So… you could solve that by never allowing the mentioning of any brand name in any form of media. That would make reviews illegal. That’s fair, I suppose, because reviews are definitely seen as a form of advertising. That’s why companies often provide review copies of things for free to journalists in the hope they might talk/write about them. Maybe you could carve out an exception allowing a brand and model to be mentioned if there are safety issues or product recalls?

      Ok, so now you have a Formula 1 event, it’s on TV but you have to pay for that broadcast because it’s not ad supported. The cars, of course, don’t have any ads on them. But, are they allowed to have the manufacturer’s name and logo on them? Is it advertising if say Ferrari puts a lot of money into F1, wins a lot, and so when you watch the news you see Ferrari-red cars with Ferrari logos winning a race? Also, could the drivers wear coveralls with the Ferrari logo on them? What about fans of Ferrari, could they wear a shirt with the Ferrari logo on them if they were simply fans of the brand? What if this supposed Ferrari fan were a supermodel? Does someone have to carefully go through the finances of any very attractive person to see if they’re ever wearing a logo not because they’re a fan but because they’ve been compensated?

      I’m in favour of reducing the amount of advertising we see. I think it’s a bit absurd now. But, while it’s possible to tax it or regulate it, I think it would be very hard to completely eliminate it.

  • mrmule@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    17 days ago

    Took a trip to Cuba, one of the first things I noticed was lack of billboards and advertising in general. It was quite refreshing.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      Another example of that is Pyongyang. They do have billboards to Kim Jong Un, and memorials to Kim Jong Il. But, for the most part the city is free of billboards. It’s really strange if you’re used to modern western cities.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Should we allow the best of science to be used to manipulate people’s base desires? Or should we protect the average person from being taken advantage of?

    Unless you are a sociopath the answer is clear. Advertising in its current form should be completely banned. Perhaps some form of non-comparative advertising could be allowed if it just stated simple facts without creating a psychological hook to subconsciously fuck with the consumer.

    Who am I kidding though, give these fuckers even an inch and they will circumnavigate the globe. Ban all advertising.

      • huppakee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        The article is about paid advertising. Paying someone to spread your opinion is in my eyes very different than telling someone about your opinion and trying to persuade that person to agree with you.

      • TeamAssimilation
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        OMG someone in the wild that thinks the advertising industry is about free speech!

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        17 days ago

        The salt that makes it propaganda and not just a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to unconsciously condition the victim

        But I understand why children like you miss that nuance

        • Koarnine@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          Nuance that is not definitionally a part of what constitutes ‘propaganda’ whether you infantilize someone else for seeing things differently or not.

          Go on, provide some examples and sources if you want to make such a grand claim.

          Something being propaganda does not necessitate that it contains subliminal messaging, propaganda can be entirely overt and without unconscious conditioning techniques.

          A convincing argument is propaganda, you just wrongly believe yourself to be above propaganda, the same way you seem to consider yourself above others generally…

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            17 days ago

            So either you are an LLM, have poor reading comprehension, or are just actively being stupid.

            Never in my statement was nuance a part of the definition. I specifically stated that the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to manipulate the victim’s outcomes.

            The nuance portion was purely stating that such mental children cannot grasp the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument.

            I look forward to seeing how you actively misunderstand this post too, what a fun game!

            • Koarnine@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              Nowhere did I misunderstand your post, you stated it back to me?

              I’m saying that the difference you are describing doesn’t exist, thus the nuance you ascribe ‘mental children’ to lack to perceive is imaginary.

              I understand words convey a meaning beyond definitionally, but definitionally there is no mention of such a requirement. Thus I asked you for any sources backing up such a claim.

              I have not deviated from what I said previously. Nor misinterpreted you intentionally whatsoever. Rather, I disagree with you.

              Also I am not an llm, and I intend to discuss with you calmly and fairly and not misinterpret what you are saying. If you are willing to engage

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      Somewhere along the line I read a scifi book where “truth in advertising” laws were used to convict advertisers so they could be put in jail and used as involuntary organ donors. And I am sad to say I wouldn’t feel very sorry if that were a real thing. My hate for manipulative ads is so strong it overrides my hate for killing.

  • Robbity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    17 days 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.