Hacker News Reader

Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

Why isn't there a bigger push to regulate the pernicious injection of ads into every aspect of society? There is regularly discussion about the dominance of big tech and often suggestions that we enshrine big tech as permanent fixtures into our life by designating them as necessary utilities that we pump into every home like running water, yet we rarely if ever hear any discussion of cracking down on ads, which are actually the primary source of power for big tech and also the source of all the things we hate most about them (tracking, behavior and demographic analysis, data collection, advertiser driven content agendas that result in bans etc). I wish this were more of a concern to the public.

View on HN

I think society needs to have a reckoning around advertisement and decide what kinds of ads are moral and societally good. There are lots of categories I'd love to ban if king:

- All advertisements to children

- Advertisements for prescription drugs

- Advertisements that intend to evoke emotional responses rather than inform:

--- Many ads are designed to make the viewer feel inferior so they want to buy the product to remedy the negative emotions the ads caused

--- Many ads seek to irrationally associate a brand with a positive feeling, which overrides consumers ability to make rational purchasing decisions

--- Many ads seek vague 'brand awareness' without any informational content

I think there is a narrow case around informative advertisements "Hey this product or service exists, it might be something you want" that can be societally useful, but the vast majority of video and print ads are not doing that.

I'd ban all ads that were intrusive, so that advertising was only allowed if you had to go looking for it, rather than having it come looking for you. With a bit of an allowance for stuff like sandwich boards directly in front of shops or "so-and-so's bed+breakfast 3 miles ->" kinds of signs.

- All advertisements featuring children

Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.”

Why is it that the default response of so many adults today is to demand that an authority figure impose their own will on someone else?

As a society we’ve mostly regulated away the truly dangerous threats to a safe and healthy life. Now the wealthy among us have too much anxious energy that gets spent decrying things that merely bother them. Without a realistic frame of reference, these annoyances balloon into huge threats in their mind’s eye.

I think rich people have always thought this way, but nowadays there’s more people who live a rich life thanks to technological developments.

> to a safe and healthy life.

Huxley was right, we have come to love the world we live in

Every faction across the political spectrum has interest in using authority to impose their will on others, that's the only purpose of politics. What I'm asking is why so much attention is given to impositions that would do nothing to diminish big tech dominance rather than addressing aspects that would not only curtail their dominance, but also move us away from the ad riddled dystopia that is unanimously reviled.

I live in a downtown of a medium-size city and right now when I look out of my window I don't see a single ad. This is because the advertizing is banned. Unregulated capitalism would NEVER allow that. A view without ads is not for sale without regulations. Same for 'a clean air', 'a clear water' and million other things where an unregulated enterprise would happily shit its externalities all over the commons to make an extra cent.

That is why advertising should be regulated far more heavily than it is right now.

As for why 'default response of so many adults today is to demand that an authority figure blah blah blah', as you have asked -- it's not, stop building strawmen.

> Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.”

Of course it is. What does regulation do if not prevent an undesirable class of actions?

You're not disagreeing, or the way you think you are disagreeing doesn't fit the original statement. Your exchange is analogous to this one:

A: A square is not simply "a quadrilateral whose every angle is 90 degrees."

B: Of course it is. What is a square if not a four-sided figure with all right angles?

It's a fair point, I should have been more precise in my response. What I meant to say was, "what does regulation do, other than prevent an undesirable class of actions?"

I think, like with the square, the question is: "What are the characteristics that make the set of actions which should be prevented by regulation narrower than the set of all undesirable actions."

We know there are a huge number of undesirable actions which we don't think should be regulated. Some of them are minor things, like petty insults or inconsequential dishonesty. Others are major, but are protected by other ideals. For example, choosing to spend a million dollars on gold to bury in a private crypt. Those are some examples that come to mind when I hear that the purpose of regulation is not simply to prevent undesirable actions. It's not that regulation does things other than that. It's that it must have some other attributes in addition to that. Determining those attributes is what makes it not simple.

>Why isn't there a bigger push to regulate the pernicious injection of ads into every aspect of society?

Because between digital and print its a 3/4 Trillion dollar market and growing.

I personally think all advertising should be illegal, but it's basically one of the most important pieces of how the modern economy works unfortunately.

> Why isn't there a bigger push to regulate the pernicious injection of ads into every aspect of society?

The starting off point for ads was signs in shop windows and billboards or bundled with important information like nespapers, these are the most invasive of all because you can't avoid them. Everything since is at least something you can opt out of.

The worst thing about ads is that not only are they convincing you to spend money on something you otherwise wouldn't have, but you indirectly pay for the advertising that convinces you was well. Companies that spend less to assault your senses have cheaper products, so to combat it spend less on cheaper alternatives that don't advertise.

It could be argued that ads are inherently attention diluting and therefore can only be harmful. Some research might help but this is a difficult subject to study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com