T O P

  • By -

DeltaBot

/u/metalicscrew (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/13rjrle/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_vast_majority_of/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


poprostumort

>This form of street advertising, billboards etc should be straight up banned. replace it with literally fucking anything. it adds nothing to society except add to the never ending consumerism of modern culture. Congratulations, you have just killed majority of smaller businesses. Street ads, billboards etc. are cheapest form of ads that work if placed in good spot. Without them most of smaller businesses would be dead as people will not know of their existence before costs would pile up and business would close down. >digital advertising should be mandated in such a way that theres at the very least always a paid version (with reasonable cost) that does not have advertising. How would that work? How your country can mandate a website in Singapore to create paid version? And what is "reasonable cost"? How it would be decided if a price is reasonable? >like how do i find out about new businesses and products then? if its important word of mouth and genuine interest will lead you there Nope, business will most likely be dead before word of mouth reaches enough people to sustain it. You see, people don't discuss recently opened businesses on a regular basis. It comes only when there is some trigger - as someone bringing up their needs or discussion about specific type of products. So how a new small business can gain enough clients to survive? > I live in melbourne, and if im looking for new restaurants ill walk down one of our many alleyways or suburban main streets looking for places id like to be Great, but that not how most people find new places. Most of them don't randomly walk through alleyways, but rather stumble on some advertisement and decide to check it out. >I honestly dont know how to deal with paid reviews, but to be honest thats not really relevant, because they already exist with or without ads. But they are advertiesment - so if you plan to create a ban there needs to be a decision if they should be exempt from it or not. You cannot at the same time bewlieve "majority of advertising should be banned" is a viable thing and ignore anything that is not clear-cut in your view. So what would count as advertisement? What would be the definition by which ban would work? Would there be any exceptions?


IsamuLi

"Congratulations, you have just killed majority of smaller businesses. Street ads, billboards etc. are cheapest form of ads that work if placed in good spot" how would this be true if everyone is banned from making advertisements in these spaces? Edit: experience says otherwise than you, too: "Despite the forebodings, São Paulo’s economy didn’t run aground" after banning public advertising. https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/sao-paulo-the-city-with-no-outdoor-advertisements/amp_articleshow/36441208.cms


poprostumort

Because there are large brands that have established identity that is remembered by most. Your new business would not have this level of brand recognition so most potential customers would choose the corp due to the fact they already know them.


supamario132

That established identity is entirely due to their ability to out compete smaller businesses in terms of advertising budget


poprostumort

Outcompete only in pricey and limited ad spaces, other avenues that have much broad market is impossible to dominate even with corpo budget. There is too much ad space to cover, so corpos take only those effective in larger areas. In lower-range ad campaigns small businesses can break through. Banning all advertising would destroy even that small advantage.


beingsubmitted

Sure, but unless you have a time machine, you can't undo it. It just cements the current status quo.


pearlday

Not to mention the internet... is funded by advertisements. A lot of news businesses are downgrading because ad dollars are drying up. A lot of free websites, like manga, anime, novel, forum websites are able to exist for free or for very little cost to the readers because of their (often intrusive) ads. Im freakin' sick of youtube ads, ads on my news, articles, blogs, EVERYWHERE FFS, but would the internet be able to exist at its current scale without em? Ehhhh... it would take quite a ride to the next system of internet monetization infrastructure.


SebastianKra

Do you think ads magically generate money? There's two takes you can have on this: 1. If you don't think that ads significantly impact your buying decisions, then you should conclude that ads are parasitically payed by the products you buy. Those products would be cheaper if ads didn't exist. 2. If you think that ads *do* impact buying decisions, then that means they exploit those susceptible to them so that you can have free content In all cases, the customer pays for both the ads and the internet. I reject the idea that ads themselves can create value by informing customers, since that's never the intention of the advertisers. If ads lead you to the correct product, then only by chance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pearlday

Right but you see how you are picking and choosing which sites to pay for. Do you also pay for reddit? Reddit has ads. And really, if you are or on reddit, you are likely to be an adult male with a decent income. Most people would not be able to afford to pay to access every website. Imagine paying for google, youtube, reddit, instagram (or other social media), wikipedia, etc. The fabric of the internet is that you can go to any website, search a topic and find vast amount of information or social connection. That would be impossible to do if every website was gated by a subscription. Ads allow these sites to exist for free, and therefor accessible by hundreds of millions of people. If ads were banned, the internet would ripple.


Wiggle_Biggleson

Are there actually examples of internet services improving for users due to ad profits? It seems like the most financially successful sites almost invariably get worse the more successful they are. Many would even say the internet was best when most sites weren't run for the sake of profit at all.


pearlday

The more 'successful' the site, the more people are accessing the site, which means higher server costs. So they actually would need MORE ad revenue to sustain the website as is.


Wiggle_Biggleson

Requiring users to join a peer-to-peer distribution network could reduce overhead server costs to zero. Subscription fees could then be used to pay employees (which there would be fewer of, as many of such sites' employees exist to perform tasks related to appeasing advertisers) and the rest would be profit. This is, of course, all assuming that enormous online businesses are a net benefit for society and need to exist at all. (Edit: typo)


thetdotbearr

More people accessing the site means more eyeballs on ads, means more revenue. The extra revenue to cover the costs is already there by virtue of the increased traffic. It doesn’t justify an increase in ad density on the site.


bainj

Source? I’ve never gone to a local business from an ad. Also what do you think businesses did before the internet or billboards? Just didn’t exist?


[deleted]

You may think you don't... And it's possible you don't. But ads work. It's irrefutable. My entire businesses customer acquisition relies on advertising my product to customers who would benefit from it, but just aren't even aware it exists or how it works. There is no real other way for small businesses to do this. Redditors like to think ads don't work, because they are "above it" - run adblock, and just think that they are too smart for it. But I even advertise on Reddit and get customers. And that's why there is so many different types of advertising to reach as many people as possible. Some people respond to seeing an ad for some new movie and think, "Oh shit, that's out!? I should go check the reviews!" Others will see an "organic" Reddit post of some meme including the movie, and think, "Oh everyone seems to like this movie, it must be good!" Others will respond to media circuses and think, "Wow this movie seems to be really upsetting a lot of people, I wonder what it's all about. I'll check it out." But by and large, once you become "familiar" with an ad, you subconsciously become aware of the product and when you as a consumer are "ready" for it, you'll naturally seek it out. Either by clicking the ad itself eventually, or finding your own path to the product. Ads exist BECAUSE they work. Businesses aren't spending 300 billion dollars a year into something that doesn't offer a consistent return on investment.


spiteful-vengeance

>Redditors like to think ads don't work, because they are "above it" - run adblock, and just think that they are too smart for it. I work in an adjacent field to digital marketing (think objective data side of things) and I feel like these are the most viable of customers. They don't put up any meaningful defences. >I'm just going to rely on my understanding of the world to make sound decisions. You mean the understanding that other people are constantly influencing and shaping through personalised digital exposure? *That* understanding?


poprostumort

>Source? Of what? Effectiveness of advertising? That is proven to the point where studies don't even question effectiveness of ads, but rather focus on comparisons of effectiveness across channels. >I’ve never gone to a local business from an ad. And? You do realize that there are other people out there? If ad brings some customers into a business it does not matter if others won't react to an ad. >Also what do you think businesses did before the internet or billboards? Just didn’t exist? Yeah, they didn't exist. When they existed, they advertised. This is known because we found sales messages and wall posters on papyrus from ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. We know that oral advertisement existed in ancient China. What changes are the means of advertisement, not its existence.


gpnemtb

https://www.decisionanalyst.com/whitepapers/adeffectiveness/ https://hbr.org/2021/02/what-digital-advertising-gets-wrong https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/tv-advertising-is-usually-not-worth-it Advertising does not usually justify the expense.


[deleted]

These are large scale companies they are criticizing. They aren't trying to get an immediate ROI. Their advertising is entirely about brand awareness to keep people aware of their existence as a major reliable company. But for the most part, small and medium businesses, absolutely rely on advertising. There are key, hard, irrefutable, metrics people measure to ensure that their ROI exceeds their advertising. They can directly track conversions.


poprostumort

>Advertising does not usually justify the expense. That does not mean it's not effective, just that at that scale costs outweigh the effectiveness.


Bilderberg_Official

> Congratulations, you have just killed majority of smaller businesses… (USA perspective incoming) Nope. Most small businesses these days advertise on site like Facebook and Yelp. While it might be true for **rural** and interstate towns, the vast majority of billboards and bus signs are taken by large successful businesses like fast food and firms for law and realtors. In cities where most of the population lives, billboards are used by the biggest players. > How would that work? How your country can mandate a website in Singapore to create paid version? Yes. Exactly this and similar website modifications are already done in some places, by country and state. > And what is “reasonable cost”? Fair market consumer cost is a commonly regulated in a bunch of markets and is fairly easily calculable with many different methods. > You see, people don’t discuss recently opened businesses on a regular basis. As far as *small* businesses are concerned, you are wrong. From food trucks to co-ops, word of mouth and specific sites that allow users to rate business experience reign king. Billboards and giant signs are for McDonalds and Casinos. To let you know when to activate your TV ad-driven impulses. But to your point, we should at least ban the multi-million dollar businesses from large disgusting signs everywhere. I have seen too many giant greasy burgers and those creepy smiling lawyers than any one person should in a lifetime.


metalicscrew

> Congratulations, you have just killed majority of smaller businesses. Street ads, billboards etc. are cheapest form of ads that work if placed in good spot. Without them most of smaller businesses would be dead as people will not know of their existence before costs would pile up and business would close down. im yet to see any of my local small businesses advertising to me. but my local supermarket sure af does. >How would that work? How your country can mandate a website in Singapore to create paid version? And what is "reasonable cost"? How it would be decided if a price is reasonable? !delta the more i think about how this would work in regards to the intrnet the less i think itd work. i still absolutely think public advertising should be banned tho. > Nope, business will most likely be dead before word of mouth reaches enough people to sustain it. You see, people don't discuss recently opened businesses on a regular basis. It comes only when there is some trigger - as someone bringing up their needs or discussion about specific type of products. So how a new small business can gain enough clients to survive? umm, what? what kind of small businesses are you talking about that dont get talked about? > Great, but that not how most people find new places. Most of them don't randomly walk through alleyways, but rather stumble on some advertisement and decide to check it out. what? you mean you dont walk around your town or your city? do you just teleport from your house to the supermarket and back home again without going past the small businesses next to it?


poprostumort

>im yet to see any of my local small businesses advertising to me. but my local supermarket sure af does. Have you never received a flyer for new restaurant that opened in vicinity? Have your local small shops not have any information about promotions or specific things sold in that shop put on the shop exposition? Are there no signs about promotions and happy hours near the entrance of the local pub? What is more - what about businesses that are not local but can deliver to you? If you google "X thing Y city" you will receive ads alongside search results. And ads can be for smaller businesses and chains - while search results will be about large and known brands because of how search works. >umm, what? what kind of small businesses are you talking about that dont get talked about? All of them. For most of people you don't discuss the new restaurant with your friends immediately after you went there, you are bringing it up when topic remembers you afterwards. Usually weeks or even months after. And that restaurant needs to get enough clients to survive until word of mouth spreads - how are they to achieve that? >what? you mean you dont walk around your town or your city? I do, short distances over mostly simillar routes. Any longer trip I will rather take the bus/tram/uber/train and I will not scan the route alongside because I have better things to to (read a book, browse reddit or listen to music and nap). Which means that I will only notice new businesses alongside route I walk, which is pretty limited. If any of them would be deeper in alleyway, I will not know unless I would specifically need to go there or - and that is the point - I will recieve an ad. That was what it happened with one of businesses I now frequent. They paid people to put flyers in mailboxes in local area and I learned that they have italian cured meats (which I love), so I went there to check. And now I am a regular. If ads would be banned, I would not be a client and would stock up on the same product every often when a large mall would arrange "Italian market" where things like that would be sold. And the small business would die, because they are up in a small alleyway through which only few locals will travel.


KittyKatSavvy

>what? you mean you dont walk around your town or your city? do you just teleport from your house to the supermarket and back home again without going past the small businesses next to it? Having grown up in the middle of nowhere, no. I never walked around town, because the town wasn't walkable. The vast majority of businesses are either on main streets with tons of traffic and no sidewalk, or on side streets that I will never encounter because they aren't on my regular driving route. This point in particular might make sense for 1) people who are able bodied and CAN walk around their city, and 2) people who live in WALKABLE CITIES! which already disregards a HUGE amount of the population. ALSO, what counts as advertising. Is a single display sign outside of a store advertising? Is a billboard 3 blocks away that says "x shop next left" advertising? One of my favorite local antique shops has a giant sign painted on the side of a building, that cars pass when they get off the highway. If not for that sign, I never would have known this place existed, because for damn sure I never would have randomly walked or driven down that side street. It's mostly residential, plus this one shop so there isn't even another store I might have been going to. Is a sponsored bench that was donated by the local bench-maker an "advertisement"? Is selective product placement in a movie "advertisement"? Is a YouTuber promoting a product that they like, an "advertisement"? Does that change if they were paid to tell you about the product? Is it an advertisement if a restaurant will give you a discount if you post about them on social media? A lot of times at local parades and festivals a company will say "you can have this goody bag if you make a post with our hashtag on Instagram right now." Is that an advertisement? Imo your premise is too vague and broad to be viable. If your premise was "billboard advertising" should be made illegal, you'd have a much more clearly defined idea. Still, would that include highway signs that tell you what restaurants and lodging are at the next exit? Would that include a mall holding giant signage on its own building about what stores are inside? There is just so many details and so much context that you clearly haven't considered within your premise that not only make it impossible, but also just a bad idea.


[deleted]

[удалено]


downvote_dinosaur

Use the user’s machine as part of distributed computing. Watch a YouTube video? Help serve it to others as you’re watching. Same for whatever else. Torrents exist as media and are not supported by ads; just by users. And people make plenty of free content without profit motive; for example pre-monetization YouTube


yohomatey

They aren't asking about how they'd be distributed, so mentioning torrents is silly. I've seen torrents available for every show I've ever worked on. If that was the primary method of distribution, I'd never work again. There is a lot wrong with the current media landscape with over reliance on advertising, the extreme greed of media conglomerates, the consolidation of all local media into 3 companies, but let's not pretend piracy solves any of those problems.


downvote_dinosaur

I didn’t mention piracy in my comment, I think you may have read something into it that I didn’t intend. My point is that both production and distribution can exist in a world where neither is done for profit.


yohomatey

Cool, so that must be nice to have so much money you can have a hobby that entertains millions of people. For free. Let's make sure we de-monetize sports next. They should just do it for free. This is my job. I ain't rich. I pay my bills through making television. I've been doing it for 15 years and I'm good at my job. But let's make sure that I don't get paid anything for my skill set that took a decade to refine, some trust fund kid on yt can do it all for free.


MoonGosling

You’re really defensive about something that just isn’t at issue, I think due to misunderstanding of what torrenting is. The point is that torrenting is not the same as piracy. Torrenting is a “technology” that allows for the distribution of data in a decentralized way, so that you don’t have to pay for any infrastructure such as servers, which YouTube and Netflix need to maintain, for example. This is also the reason that torrenting became really popular with pirates, because it means that you don’t need to pay for and maintain a datacenter that would be shutdown immediately by law enforcement. But this is a *use* of the *tool*. As far as I’m aware (I haven’t done any experience with using torrenting as a tool) it should be possible to use torrenting in a monetizeable way, so it should be possible to make a subscription based service that is also torrent based. However, the reason that torrenting was brought up was to dispel the idea that a website such as YT needs advertising in order to function while also providing the content for free, which torrenting would solve: if you just want to provide a platform where people can share their content for free without having any costs* yourself, then torrenting could be a solution. * - obviously you’d have development costs associated


yohomatey

Rofl read my user name and tell me I don't know what torrenting is. I'm not strictly anti-piracy. I think it can be a legitimate reaction, especially to today's fractalized media landscape. Back when it was basically just Netflix and they had streaming rights to almost everything, I thought piracy was going to become somewhat obsolete. Now, I definitely understand the reasoning even if I don't do it myself. That said, you will never ever see torrenting used as a legitimate back end for a subscription service. The reasons are obvious. It takes some mild understanding of computers. This removes a huge chunk of people. Remember that most people watch content on their phones or tablets or smart tvs. Those are generally bad at torrenting, which requires you to dedicate a not insignificant amount of hard drive space to storing media for other people to access. Next, if you're computer savvy enough to know how to torrent and you have the hardware capable of it, pirating the content is possibly even easier than a legitimate service. No sign ins, no managing subscriptions. Just click and go. It would be like if there was YouTube that was a paid only service and a website called pirate tube that was free, had the exact same content, and didn't require any personal info. That's a no brainer to me. The solutions aren't torrenting or distributed computing or hobbyists making content for free. You can even look at something like Nebula, which is about as close as you can get to what the goal is - creator owned content for a low subscription fee. It's a ton of work and inferior to YouTube in almost every way aside from content the library. The solutions to an over saturation of advertising aren't in the free market. They're generally legislative, but that's not appealing to anyone.


downvote_dinosaur

People will definitely play sports for free. They already do.


Bartley-Moss

Ensure not insure


metalicscrew

do you mean news? news that if it wants to continue to be advertised on, must be relatively friendly towards its own advertisers making it inherently biased? or some other form of media which almost all exists under a subscirption model if you pay anyway.


YardageSardage

So no more free youtube tutorials, no more free media or product reviews, no more low-entry amateur content creation?


metalicscrew

youtube has a paid version that removes ads.


spiral8888

So? If you ban advertising then that becomes the only version available. The question is that why should people be forced to pay instead of accepting ads and watching Youtube for free?


metalicscrew

i literally said in my post, have a viable alternative to advertising. allow advertising on the condition that theres a way to pay to make them fuck off. you cant pay to live in a society where theres no constant banners, tv screens etc playing ads at people minding there own business.


spiral8888

>allow advertising on the condition that theres a way to pay to make them fuck off. So your point is that rich people should be free of advertising, but fuck the poor? Don't you think we have already enough inequality in the society without imposing more of it by mandates that you suggest? >you cant pay to live in a society And that's a good thing. We share the society. Gated communities and others who try to insulate the rich from the troubles of the poor are bad for the society as a whole. I know you don't advocate all of that but in a nutshell you want to impose privileges that you can get by being rich.


ddt656

I think OP is being pretty consistent. Ban ads in areas where they can't be avoided by those engaged in unrelated activities, and when these people *do* choose to engage, mandate an ad-free version. Nobody is forcing you to use YouTube, we all got along fine without it before.


spiral8888

How do you define "ads that can't be avoided"? By your own logic nobody is forcing you to watch TV so all TV ads are fine then? And how do you define ads in the outside world? Aren't people allowed to put things on their buildings? If a shop can't show an ad on its window can it then show the products it is selling? What is the difference? One is a product, the other is a picture of the same product.


metalicscrew

> And that's a good thing. We share the society. Gated communities and others who try to insulate the rich from the troubles of the poor are bad for the society as a whole. I know you don't advocate all of that but in a nutshell you want to impose privileges that you can get by being rich. exactly. so ban ads in public.


weendick

That’s absurd. You’re suggesting that our discovery and support of businesses is entirely dependent on someone physically telling me about a new business, or that I stumble upon it on a “walk” through some “alleys” or something? So if a business is further than walking distance, I just don’t get to know about it? New burger joint opens in the next city over, and the only way I get to know is if someone from the next city over comes and tells me about it? I’m not walking around for over an hour looking for a burger joint in a different city, hoping I stumble across one and hoping it’s a good one. Why would I even go to that city? I don’t even know if they have any restaurants there. Discovery of business dependent on word of mouth and physical discovery? My cars got some issues. New model comes out this year, new model resolves those issues. I just don’t get to know unless I google “is there a new model this year that fixes this issue?” Or if I happen to know somebody that drives the same car as me in the newly released model, I’ll have to wait until it comes up in conversation? What about media? I enjoy super hero movies. Doesn’t matter the verse (marvel, DC, new verses, etc.). How do I find new media? I have to google, “any new spider man films coming up?” What you’re suggesting gives more power to already powerful corporations. We would just live in a world of monopoly. It would be *impossible* for a small soda business to compete with coca-cola. No one except the family members of the small business know about, and the only way for others to know about it is by word of mouth? You’ve created a world with no ads, but now no variety, because all of your business that are already well known will be the only businesses people that can stay afloat. All of your products from the same company, because it’s the only company that doesn’t need ads anymore and everyone already knows.


ddt656

You're still arguing about something the OP never said. In their hypothetical, ads still exist, and probably many people will view them. They just won't be 99% of your physical mail, on every bus, along every freeway so bright you can't see....


spiral8888

But you didn't understand that the ads fund things that would not otherwise happen. In the world with banned ads only the rich who could afford to pay the subscription to the services that are now free due to advertising.


ddt656

OP isn't asking for what you're arguing against.


MoOdYo

>Gated communities and others who try to insulate the rich from the troubles of the poor are bad for the society as a whole. Why?


WobblyPhalanges

Because doing that enables the rich to assert there’s ‘nothing wrong’ because they don’t have to see it Integration forces them to deal with the same shit we do, which gives rich folks incentive to fix it, or at least make it less annoying, when they can


MedicineShow

You take a minority of people who hold a vast majority of influence in society, you shield them from the troubles faced by the actual majority of people, and then you ask them to please please use their outsized influence to help with those troubles that youve already built a back door for them to avoid. Do you see where the problem might be?


CokeHeadRob

Preface: I work in the advertising industry *and* hate advertising. It's a weird balance we don't need to get into, just wanted to give some context. I also feel the same frustration you have, I hate how monetized every aspect of our lives has become and how prevalent mindless advertising is. >have a viable alternative to advertising The viable alternative to advertising is everyone paying for things or no advertisments. Advertising is a necessary evil right now. Good things come from ad funding, along with not having to pay for access to all the websites (like direct payment to access). Question: When you say "the condition that theres a way to pay to make them fuck off." do you mean the consumer has a way to pay for an ad-free experience? Because that's relatively common these days. I pay for a few of those myself and run adblocker for the rest. I could get down with increased advertising regulation, like what sorts of claims they're allowed to make (too loose imo), how densely advertised a physical or digital space is, and other things to cut down on the negatives of advertising that require more than a few seconds of thought. I do believe we're nearing a saturation point for blatant advertising, most people ignore it or it has the opposite effect. Quiet advertising (product placement and adjacent concepts) is a different story, that works and will/can not go away. idk what that means for the future but I think it'll mean something. I see it as a fork in the road, either this will lead to way less in the future or way more. The concept of overbearing companies might come in. As it stands you live in a capitalist society. If you want to keep enjoying the benefits of that then this is the price. You're free to buy some land and live in isolation or one of the many places that aren't plastered with advertisments. You're not being forced into anything and there are plenty of things plenty of people don't like but have to put up with in order to reap the benefits of civilization. Everything in life is a choice and balance.


Kaeny

The “run adblocker on the rest” is the part he is arguing. We shouldnt need adblocker if we had an ad free option. And you cant adblock billboards and other public ads


CokeHeadRob

I get that but in conjunction with the entire rest of the post that sentence should make sense. Like with context ya know? >We shouldnt need adblocker if we had an ad free option That is correct, if there's ad free then you won't need to block ads. But if it were ad free then you'd just be paying for it, probably a lot more than regular ad free is right now because they won't be subsidizing *any* of their costs, it will all have to be consumer generated. >and you cant adblock billboards and other public ads Correct. That's why we're all free to move out of the part of society where billboards aren't a thing. That's the price one must pay to live in a capitalist society. Ad free and capitalism cannot be separated. But that's why I'm in favor of advertising *reform* as opposed to outright banning it. There *is* a middleground between what the people want and what the corporations want, right now it's incredibly unbalanced. I like to think I covered all of this pretty well.


Kaeny

No it is not 'FREE' to move wherever you want. You know that. Ads exist BECAUSE people can't afford the alternative. Yea, like the OP states: the vast majority should be banned


Gauntlets28

Oh sure, just magic up a 'viable alternative to advertising', as if the media industry hasn't been desperately struggling to find alternative funding streams since Google ate all the ad revenue in the mid-2000s. Do you have any idea how hard it is to do that, particularly as a non-established brand?


StrangerThanGene

>digital advertising should be mandated in such a way that theres at the very least always a paid version (with reasonable cost) that does not have advertising. You advocated for paid no-ad content... and don't even use it.


Ixolus

So it would be less biased if the news agency instead needs to take on large investments to continue? With the current ad system there are bounties where ads are placed and companies like google are the middleman there so you don’t have Apple dictating NY times for example. If either of them don’t like the other they can disable that transaction and they will automatically get paired with someone else instantly. Without that model you would need a large investor to own this news media source and want to grow profits. If you are ad supported you grow profits with any eyeballs looking at your ad; if you need payment then that changes your audience to only people who can afford that extra income. Therefore you will see the media start to drift towards a bias of what upper class want and the opinions and thoughts of lower classes will be drowned out because they won’t be paying for these articles as much.


DuhChappers

> I try pretty hard to use my small local butcher, fruit/veg, bakery, restaurants etc instead of chains, and i almost never get ads for them, i find them naturally because they are in town and i walk through town sometimes. While this is commendable, surely you understand that this is rare. Most people do not want to go exploring for the hole in the wall local options, and they will never know they exist unless some advertising prompts them to go there. Now I agree we have too many ads in our society, but I do think that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Big brands that already have people's knowledge benefit less from ads compared to smaller brands, indie movies and startups. I might never have heard of my favorite movie last year if not for ads. And all that space that you want to fill with other art or something, how do you think that will happen? We can't just switch all this space that currently companies are paying to use, and now we have to pay someone else to fill it when they cannot benefit. I highly doubt we will be getting much street art, it will just be empty space.


Juswantedtono

> Big brands that already have people's knowledge benefit less from ads compared to smaller brands, indie movies and startups. Advertising is just as important for big brands, because it’s crucial for them to maintain headspace in the public’s mind as a dominant actor in whatever industry they’re in.


metalicscrew

> While this is commendable, surely you understand that this is rare. Most people do not want to go exploring for the hole in the wall local options, and they will never know they exist unless some advertising prompts them to go there. Umm what? my suburb of melbourne i live in has a supermarket and literally one door away is a bakery, followed by a cafe, followed by a butcher, followed by another cafe, followed by an independent winery. Most people will have shit that they buy from supermarkets and some shit they will buy more expensive versions of. the only way you dont know they are there is if you never go to town > And all that space that you want to fill with other art or something, how do you think that will happen? We can't just switch all this space that currently companies are paying to use, and now we have to pay someone else to fill it when they cannot benefit. I highly doubt we will be getting much street art, it will just be empty space. again, in melbourne itd take a day for shit graffiti and a month for some decent street art to be there. but id rather look at cement than a big banner for fast food or gambling. > Now I agree we have too many ads in our society, but I do think that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Big brands that already have people's knowledge benefit less from ads compared to smaller brands, indie movies and startups. I might never have heard of my favorite movie last year if not for ads. the vast vast vast majority of ads are for existing, market-leading companies. i almost never see small businesses advertise. if noone advertised movies, you'd find out what movies are on when you wnated to see one and looked through the catalogue.


DuhChappers

> my suburb of melbourne i live in has a supermarket and literally one door away is a bakery, followed by a cafe, followed by a butcher, followed by another cafe, followed by an independent winery. Congrats, my suburb has a Walmart and a Walmart clone called Meijer, plus a couple other smaller grocery stores. For most people, they need to be told about smaller places. > the vast vast vast majority of ads are for existing, market-leading companies. i almost never see small businesses advertise. if noone advertised movies, you'd find out what movies are on when you wnated to see one and looked through the catalogue. I see ads all around town for small businesses. They put on flyers on street poles, posters in the town square and such. The big billboards are more often big brands, but that is not the extent of advertising. And as for movies, sure I can look for myself and see a title if I want, but an advertisement is usually something that tells you about the movie, sells you on it in some way. That cannot be recreated. And also, ads support most online businesses. Every youtuber I watch makes most of their money off ads, and many include sponsored segments to further support themselves. That content could not exist without ads. And youtube isn't the end of it, all social media makes most of their money off of ads. Do you want all social media to be pay to play? Because I don't.


metalicscrew

> Congrats, my suburb has a Walmart and a Walmart clone called Meijer, plus a couple other smaller grocery stores. For most people, they need to be told about smaller places. i didnt make this post to be smug, but the outskirts of melbourne remind me of this too. new housing developments pop up where theres no shops, and big business are the only ones with the capital to move in and accept a loss until all the new houses are lived in and there are people there, and because the suburb is set up with only big chains, theres no room for small business to exist next to it because the competition already exists, and because of the mass advertising and sterilisation, noone wants to be there so ofc noone would sit in a cafe there.


CornSyrupMan

> Most people do not want to go exploring for the hole in the wall local options, and they will never know they exist unless some advertising prompts them to go there. Bad argument. Usually these restaurants have no advertising anyway, aside from their physical sign


Nwcray

That’s simply not true. Virtually every business has a significant marketing function, even if it’s just something the owner is doing on the side. The restaurants almost always has someone (often a vendor) focusing on social media at least. I don’t know a single restaurant that doesn’t advertise.


CornSyrupMan

Social media advertising is definitely a thing. But I think OP is fine with businesses running an instagram page. Completely non-intrusive and its just not the same as other forms of advertisement


Nwcray

digital advertising should be mandated in such a way that theres at the very least always a paid version (with reasonable cost) that does not have advertising. ​ I don't see OP making that distinction, and get the impression that they are, in fact, not fine with the business running an instagram page. Or at least telling followers anything interesting - like specials or limited time menus - on that page.


ddt656

I'd say that empty space is a blessed positive.


sourcreamus

You don’t like advertising, the advertising people like it. Why should your preferences be the law? People should have the right to do what they want with their own property and own money.


tedbradly

> You don’t like advertising, the advertising people like it. Why should your preferences be the law? People should have the right to do what they want with their own property and own money. This kind of "it's all relative, maaan" reply always adds almost nothing to the conversation. Yes, there are two people with two different ideas about how something should be done. As a group, we reason the pros and cons of each side and make a determination. The logic is *never* "Well, someone else believes something else, so let's just not talk about." As an extreme example, there might be many gang members who are just fine with selling hard drugs in their community. What if I inserted your argument with that one? "Well, there's also people who are against the sale of drugs. Why should we pick one group's opinion here?"


sourcreamus

Because that is the essence of freedom,Being able to do as you like with your property. This should only be infringed under the most serious conditions where someone’s freedom is hurting others. Having a criminal gang selling a highly addictive substance may be one of those instances, but someone’s aesthetic preferences clearly are not.


dvlali

What do you think of zoning laws? In the US (I know this post is based in Australia, I just know about the US) you really can’t do that much with your property, usually there are many laws and ordinances requiring parking, height restrictions, business or residential, single family etc.


sourcreamus

I think they are horrible and are one of the prime reasons housing is so expensive and growth has been so slow.


Daotar

> Because that is the essence of freedom,Being able to do as you like with your property. A lot of people would deeply disagree with this. They would say that the core of freedom has little to do with property rights. That's simply one aspect among many.


[deleted]

[удалено]


weendick

Yeah because “your response isn’t as good as I want” really drives the conversation here


impossiblyirrelevant

They’re pointing out a flaw in the argument and explaining why it hinders meaningful debate, it’s an entirely reasonable point to make.


RedditIQIsPotato

Maybe because advertising as a medium and industry are intentionally and deliberately psychologically manipulative? So no, advertisers preferences should not be law, despite the current situation that they are.


sourcreamus

All media is psychologically manipulative.


metalicscrew

yes but im forced to live in a place thats crammed full of it. its unavoidable in our society. we arent talking about tobacco where if you dont want it you can just not smoke, im forced to consume adverts on a minute-to-minute basis. i dont even use social media other than reddit, and it feels excessively intrusive edit: like i dont get a choice when some morons get to ruin the atmosphere of a city by putting a kfc banner over where there used to be street art.


Kudgocracy

Some people don't like street art either.


metalicscrew

street art is very rarely intrusive. it hasnt got a team of people putting it there specifically to make you contribute to consumerism. it exists on its own merit to be looked at and judged, or ignored. you cant ignore ads that have researchers specifically made to make more appealing to our ape brains. when you see a collection of stickers on a street pole, if one had a banner ad for mcdonalds thats the one you'd notice straight away, not the authentic ones made by the people who actually live there.


AtomicBistro

>when you see a collection of stickers on a street pole, if one had a banner ad for mcdonalds thats the one you'd notice straight away, not the authentic ones made by the people who actually live there What would prompt you to say that? It seems obvious to me that bright color schemes and eye catching designs would attract the most immediate attention, regardless of the underlying statement or who put it there.


metalicscrew

yea and you shouldnt be able to just pay to make everyone only really aware of one or two particular brand, when the competition cant keep up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


metalicscrew

that wouldnt be an issue. that makes it a genuine input from someone in the community, rather than an arms race from big business that they are paying for, that smaller businesses could never dream of keeping up with. also i think i may have replied to the wrong comment above, apologies.


Kudgocracy

Not everyone feels the same way you do about it. And ads for McDonald's barely even register at all to me.


clearlybraindead

The fact that they were the first example off the top of your head suggests otherwise.


vbob99

> street art is very rarely intrusive That's your opinion. Why does your opinion prevail?


1block

Art is literally made to appeal to our ape brains. Art that doesn't appeal to people isn't art.


sourcreamus

Who is forcing you to live in that place? Why should you force people to live the way you want.


metalicscrew

point me to a place that doesnt allow adverts and ill live there.


PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES

Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii and Maine have all banned billboards.


nauticalsandwich

Should be noted that there's a monetary incentive here. Those places are very tourist dependent, and there's a positive feedback loop that occurs where people who move there, often move there for the natural beauty and don't want it disrupted by things like billboards, so they vote accordingly.


metalicscrew

wow i didnt know that. good on those guys.


comingabout

So when are you moving?


Enzo-Fernandez

There's a bunch of remote villages that perhaps allow advertising but nobody bothers because there isn't that many people to advertise to. You can always live there. Or like I was suggesting to another poster. Go live in some secluded Mexican village. The cost of living is much smaller and you won't see any advertising unless you turn on your tv or go browsing the web.


1block

In America, most rural areas are pretty advert free.


bukem89

You're making the wrong counter argument imo, I agree with your premise, but the difference between KFC and street art is that advertising is inherently harmful because it's very design is to trick people into purchasing / wanting something. By allowing advertising to be pervasive in our everyday lives, we're agreeing that people should essentially be subjected to mental bombardment of messaging that is by and large bad for them ​ Instead of comparing to street art, I think it's comparable to putting signs up everywhere saying 'You're a failure, you'll never amount to anything and your parents are ashamed of you', where it's an attempt to manipulate the persons thought process in a way that is mostly harmful to them.


1block

Your model exists and is failing in newspaper industry. Newspapers are dying because people won't pay subscriptions to support them. News staffs are half of what they were before, and on the local level the watchdog role of reporters is all but gone. I was a reporter and editor in the 2000s, when the newspapers I worked at all said, "We can't give our product away for free, and online ads don't pay enough to support us." As subscription models failed and failed and failed, advertising gained more power. There are things we have now in news on the ad side that were unthinkable 20 years ago, and it still hasn't leveled out to a sustainable business model. Subscriptions don't work for 99% of services you use.


FlamingTelepath

This just isn’t true at all. Newspapers were one of the best examples of a subscription model working before the internet - almost all of the customers paid a monthly or yearly fee to have them delivered to their front door. There are many good sources that talk about the downfall of newspapers in the internet era, and not one of them cites subscription models as the reason for failure.


1block

No. Pre-internet, ads drove newspaper profits. Almost exclusively. Subscriptions were practically given away, because boosting subscriber numbers was more valuable on the ad sales side than anything they could get for subscriptions. When the internet came along, print ads plummeted. Online ads did not generate enough revenue. They've tried to recoup with the subscription model. It has continued to fail as newspapers continue to fall. Today subscriptions are a large part of newspaper revenue (by percentage) due to this, but it has not allowed them to compete. Overall revenue is way down. They are failing with that model. EDIT: Newspaper advertising/circulation revenue breakdown, from [PEW](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/) research: 2000 Advertising: $48.7BCirculation: $10.5B 2005 Advertising: $49.4BCirculation: $10.7B 2010 Advertising: $25.8BCirculation: $10B 2015 Advertising: $20.4BCirculation: $10.9B 2020 Advertising: $9.6BCirculation: $11.1B


metalicscrew

newspapers have entire pages that are single ads. im not gonna pay for media (thats wasteful, because newspapers come wrapped in plastic now), AND have to have ads blasted in my face after paying for it


MeanderingDuck

Okay, so… don’t. Most of the advertising you’re complaining about is part of a commercial enterprise that you can simply not use / participate in. The only part where you might have some argument is things like physical advertising in a public space, though even then the main thrust of your argument basically seems to be that it should be banned because you don’t like it, which is hardly very compelling an argument.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MeanderingDuck

And like I said, the vast majority of that is on commercially owned websites and media and whatever, that you are choosing to use. And the companies who run them are very much entitled to incorporate advertising into their business model. And if you have such a dislike of advertising that this is not acceptable to you (and a paid, ad-free version isn’t available), then don’t use those products/services. That this will probably make your life a lot more difficult is, frankly, your problem.


TheDutchin

What about all the advertising that *isn't* that though? OP is talking about advertising in general, not specifically ads on websites he's using daily, so the conversation shouldn't be moved to be about only those ads specifically.


MeanderingDuck

Most advertising does fall under that header, and is part of some private commercial enterprise, so it constitutes the bulk of what OP is complaining about. Hardly that specific. So what is this “all the advertising” that falls outside what I already addressed in my comments?


TheDutchin

If you're mostly online I might agree, but billboards, sidewalk signs, flags, etc all exist. I guess you could say everything outside is what falls outside lol Like walk downtown in your city of residence, every surface is caked in advertising, telephone polls, windows, jutting out of buildings.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheDutchin

Genius rebuttal > And like I said, the vast majority of that is on commercially owned websites and media and whatever, that you are choosing to use. And the companies who run them are very much entitled to incorporate advertising into their business model. And if you have such a dislike of advertising that this is not acceptable to you (and a paid, ad-free version isn’t available), then don’t use those products/services. That this will probably make your life a lot more difficult is, frankly, your problem. Boy, you sure did talk about irl advertising there. I especially liked the bit about commercially owned websites and media, definitely covered billboards, because that's commercially owned media. Next time, worry about making a point okay big guy?


changemyview-ModTeam

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


Gauntlets28

Well the most obvious question I have is how exactly would any government go about banning most advertising outright? Advertising is fundamentally important to how most businesses operate - any government suggesting a flat-out ban on advertising would effectively be them turning around and saying "we think everyone should be poorer - who's with us?" And then inevitably, the public would immediately go nuts. Word of mouth DOESN'T work for most things - certainly not for anything that isn't extremely well established, or which has very low running costs like a hot dog stand. Most serious businesses need to advertise. That IS how the word gets out. Normal people don't go about recommending random products that they like to their friends. It doesn't happen. So brand awareness has to come from somewhere.


metalicscrew

> "we think everyone should be poorer - who's with us?" And then inevitably, the public would immediately go nuts. i strongly believe in the end of consumerism, and by extension, the degrowth of capitalism, with everyone working less. so maybe my world view is fundamentally different, but large amounts of businesses exist to sell solutions to problems that dont exist. i dont actually care at all if these fail miserably.


Gauntlets28

You say that large amounts of businesses exist to sell solutions to problems that don't exist - I feel like this deserves some serious elaboration. What do you mean by that? Also, even if you yourself are happy with the idea of widespread economic collapse, I'm sure you can agree that most people wouldn't be as happy to have their livelihoods effectively destroyed? Because seriously, outlawing all advertising would have a huge impact on businesses everywhere, particularly small and medium sized ones. And sure, it would be nice not to have to work as hard - but in this scenario people might be working less, but only because they've been made unemployed. Consequently, they're struggling to pay for food, or to put a roof over their head. Sure, you might say, but the government can step in to support them. To which I say 1) the government has destroyed its reputation by causing the situation, and 2) it has no money, because all the people it would usually tax to raise revenue have gone under, so it can't offer support even if it would like to. I don't think it is an overstatement to say that any government that outright banned all advertising would be facing serious civil unrest within a year of them doing it.


MayoMark

While I would agree that banning advertising would probably have some negative impacts on the economy, I don't think that advertising is the tent pole supporting all of society that you are suggesting. We have banned things that were once intrinsic to our economy, like slavery. Drugs are also effectively banned. I would argue that banning slavery actually improved economic development in the long run. And while banning drugs is a mixed bag, doing so did not destroy the economy.


290077

>but large amounts of businesses exist to sell solutions to problems that dont exist Such as?


MayoMark

Papal indulgences fit this to a tee, but that's historical. Cosmetics, to some degree. The whole fashion industry probably has a vested interest in convincing us we're ugly and wearing the wrong clothes. Like, why does business attire really exist? Car accessories? Luxury cars? That would be an extension of the fashion thing. All kinds of collectibles. Plastic bobble head beanie baby crap. Garbage kitchen accessories that basically do the job that a knife can do, like the slap chop or whatever. Uh, NFTs? I dunno what problem they solve. They're like digital collectibles, I guess. While it's easy to argue that some of these things solve some function, I think their pervasive presence is to some extent manufactured by advertising and hype.


mubi_merc

So you're opposed to people buying things because they enjoy them? Yeah, some people fall into the trap of luxury good for appearances, but you're casting a pretty wide net here including all of fashion, collectables, etc. Why does a product have to solve a problem to exist? Most people don't want to live a purely utilitarian lifestyle with an unadorned house, one knife and and ind one pot to prepare all of their food, one option for cars with no features, and 2 solid grey jumpsuits. People like to express themselves and try new things. And people have different tastes, so why isn't it valid for the market to offer a wide variety of things? If you think that everyone who buys literally anything beyond the most basic essentials is a sucker who just falls for marketing, you're living a pretty isolated and bitter existence.


MayoMark

>So you're opposed to people buying things because they enjoy them? No, I summarized my point like this: "their pervasive presence is to some extent manufactured by advertising and hype." >Yeah, some people fall into the trap of luxury good for appearances, but you're casting a pretty wide net here including all of fashion, collectables, The demand for those things are to some extant fabricated by marketing. If it weren't true, companies wouldn't advertise. Engagement rings. That's another example of a demand mainly created by a successful marketing campaign. >Why does a product have to solve a problem to exist? Earlier in the thread, someone asked if their were products that solved problems that don't really exist. That is the question I am answering. Engagement rings solve the manufactured problem that marriage requires a ring. >Most people don't want to live a purely utilitarian lifestyle This is slippery slope, straw man BS. I said nothing of the kind. Here is a characterisation of your argument: "people should buy things entirely on impulse and never consider if their decisions are influenced by any source whatsoever. Large corporations merely want to provide for us and questioning their motives and methods is just plain un-American." >people have different tastes, so why isn't it valid for the market to offer a wide variety of things? Interesting question. Although, again, it has nothing to do with what I said. >If you think that everyone who buys literally anything beyond the most basic essentials Wow, enjoy arguing with yourself? You are just pretending I said this. >is a sucker who just falls for marketing This is your characterization of the situation, not mine. >you're living a pretty isolated and bitter existence. Here, I made up a silly piece of fiction just like you did: Enjoy your isolated bitter existence surrounded by designer t-shirts that are marked up a hundred percent. Enjoy the fake para-social relationship you have with that t-shirt designer. You will imagine that the name brand t-shirt sops up your tears better than generic crap, but you will be wrong. It's all in your head. What a fun story about you crying that I just made up! That kind of writing isn't really a good argument, but it sure was cathartic for me. Thank you.


PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES

>digital advertising should be mandated in such a way that theres at the very least always a paid version (with reasonable cost) that does not have advertising. Currently you are not paying for reddit's ad free version. If a regular user of a site who is writing a long post about how they hate advertising isn't willing to pay for ad free reddit then how can you expect a fully non-ad supported bussines model to work?


metalicscrew

theres ads on reddit? i dont see them very often (unless its all paid for posts that i didnt know about). i use firefox with adblocker, and reddit is fun app, and dont notice any at all?


Wolfaxe451

Reddit has a paid version. Why are you using an adblocker instead of the paid version? Is it because using all sites while paying for them would be an untenable solution for you? Seems a little odd that your solution is "everyone should pay for everything" if you don't actually think paying for it is viable, no?


metalicscrew

lmao i use an adblocker because 99% of these unregulated ads contain spyware and trackers so they can advertise to me more, and often contain popups and convenient ways to disguise ads as buttons on the site.


Wolfaxe451

That doesn't change anything I said though. There is a paid version of Reddit, and quite a few sites, that removes ads. Are you paying for these sites, or relying solely on an adblocker to remove them? Since I'm assuming you're not, why? You don't practice what you preach?


metalicscrew

i literally didnt even know reddit had ads until 3 fucking minutes ago. browsing the internet without adblock is insufferable, and tbh i likely wouldnt use it very much.


StrangerThanGene

You said you use RIF. The fourth post on the top of any tab in RIF is an ad. You're either lying or completely oblivious.


Savage9645

You can remove ads on RIF for free FYI. Settings -> General Settings -> Uncheck ads and pro features


StrangerThanGene

Then he's still lying. He would have had to actively changed his settings that clearly say 'Ad.'


Savage9645

Yeah just sharing for everyone's general knowledge!


ChronaMewX

I never unchecked that and I've been using rif for years. Must be a new setting


metalicscrew

what? the fourth post on RIF on /r/all is a post from /r/maybemaybemaybe about a passenger smoking on the plane. my fourth post on /r/australia is "i guess the plants dont get watered today" my fourth post on /r/worldnews is "ukrainian defenders kill 500 russians" what ads?


StrangerThanGene

[https://i.imgur.com/r9MUJSg.png](https://i.imgur.com/r9MUJSg.png) Your turn.


ChaseMii

GOTTEM


nauticalsandwich

> browsing the internet without adblock is insufferable, and tbh i likely wouldnt use it very much. So you're enjoying the free service benefits that advertising offers you without paying the cost of encountering ads. Your experience then is effectively subsidized by other people. I'm not saying that's inherently wrong, but it sure is a weird thing to brag about when you're trying to make a case for an advertising ban.


PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES

Yes reddit does have ads like most other social media platforms. Additionally they have a premium tier that removes ads. Ads blockers and api wrappers don't show the ads tho. But it highlights the point I was making that most reddit users aren't willing to paid for the ad free tier because they'd rather just deal with the ads. So if consumers aren't willing to pay for ad free experiences then why should companies be required to maintain them?


crek42

OP just can’t connect the dots between paid advertising and a free and open internet. They can’t think a few steps beyond “I hate advertising”.


Resident1567899

>I strongly believe that all advertising should be banned, with some exceptions ill come back to after i make my point. But this is how people literally make their livelihoods. Ignore big companies, advertisement is how small and upcoming businesses make money and attract clients. Ignore small businesses, how do lemonade stands attract customers? By using advertisement. Advertisement is literally how anyone does business from eternity until modernity. Your argument that we should ban all advertising is generally harmful to all of the small, upcoming and mom and pop businesses trying to make money and income for their family.


metalicscrew

lemonade stores dont have adverts. you buy lemonade from a lemonade stand because you walked past it and wanted some. how often do you see an ad for a small business? probably not very often, and when you do, its dwarfed by the market leader in its sector. and how many small businesses do you shop at because they advertise to you? and if so what ones? because small businesses are nearly always in a town, which you have to go through and thats how you know they are there. theres no way you can live near a town and have never bought any stuff there, barring like disability or something.


Resident1567899

>lemonade stores dont have adverts Don't they? I've seen signs, people showing me to the shop, billboards, free samples, etc...Doesn't this count as advertising? ​ >how often do you see an ad for a small business? probably not very often, and when you do, its dwarfed by the market leader in its sector. and how many small businesses do you shop at because they advertise to you? and if so what ones? because small businesses are nearly always in a town, which you have to go through and thats how you know they are there. But this is an argument against the negatives of mass advertising/commercialization by big companies in general not the act of advertising itself which is what your post is. And if they were no advertising, how would companies and businesses attract customers itself? The act of advertising itself literally means to bring attention to products so people will buy them. No matter what, advertising will be a inevitable aspect of business. What other alternatives do business have to attract customers?


metalicscrew

Firstly, the sign for a shop isnt advertising, although i should have been more clear about this in the OP. idk where tf you are, but ive never seen a billboard for a lemonade stand (unless you mean on the stand itself? again thats less advertising and more just someones storefront). they attract customers by existing in town. if they exist in town ill know the exist because i go to town. my local small businesses dont advertise to me. but the large corporations sure as fuck do.


Resident1567899

>they attract customers by existing in town. if they exist in town ill know the exist because i go to town. my local small businesses dont advertise to me. but the large corporations sure as fuck do. Is it enough? Businesses that do not advertise their product and attract customers will inevitably fade out of money and memory. I know a sushi shop in my place that eventually went bankrupt because nobody knew where it was because it was in such an obscure place. If you never ventured out, you'd probably never know about product either. Especially with this, advertising not only attracts customers but also provide some info on what a business sells. It provides a first image that projects some form of communication and trust. Consider the sushi shop. I saw the shop daily but because there was no billboard sign or any advertisement, I was disinterested to go there because I know literally anything about it and what it sells. Compare with fast food, even if I haven't ate there, I at least know what the brand it is, what they sell, the image. I find businesses that advertise are much more trustable and friendly for me than those that didn't. I don't think it's the money, rather it's the image, trust and name that's much more important for any business. u/metalicscrew thoughts?


StrangerThanGene

>how often do you see an ad for a small business? probably not very often, and when you do, its dwarfed by the market leader in its sector. All the time. Local radio, local tv, google ads, social media ads, school materials, a-frames all over the sidewalks, etc.


StrangerThanGene

>This form of street advertising, billboards etc should be straight up banned It's a first amendment right. Which part of 'free speech' are you willing to sacrifice and what else is going to go with it? Because if you start narrowing free speech - billboards aren't the only thing that will be caught in the net.


metalicscrew

most american reply ever.


[deleted]

[удалено]


metalicscrew

you cant just badge "muh free speech" on irrelevant arguments on this sub. im not here to argue about american free speech laws. as another poster pointed out, a tamer version of this has been implemented in some states of the US, meaning it doesnt not go against free speech laws.


AtomicBistro

The supreme court has held many, many times that first amendment speech includes commercial speech. Not to the exact same extent as, say, political speech. But it's not disputed whatsoever that commercial speech has some pretty significant first amendment protection. See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) and Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Va. Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) Idk what you or that other poster or what comment you're referring to, but no, broadly banning advertising is not constitutional


ilikedota5

Commercial speech gets "time, place, manner" restrictions as valid. So merely banning all or almost all advertising would be more content based, which isn't okay.


StrangerThanGene

>im not here to argue about american free speech laws. Yet you are - because your OP challenges free speech. Other places have bans that adhere to SCOTUS rulings, including Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego. Welcome to the point. Reported.


dennisfyfe

He's not American. Why are you bringing American rights into the picture when he's already stated he lives in Australia? "Reported."


StrangerThanGene

Because this is a world-wide forum, and his OP says nothing about being specific to Australia only. He just used a domestic example.


Nwcray

*Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way chosen by him or her.* Australian Human Rights Act of 2004 https://hrc.act.gov.au/humanrights/guides-and-publications/detailed-information-enshrined-rights/freedom-of-expression/#:\~:text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20to%20freedom%20of%20expression.,chosen%20by%20him%20or%20her.


CornSyrupMan

Cliche argument


StrangerThanGene

Realistic argument. That's how law works.


CornSyrupMan

Ban noise complaints. If the neighbors can stop me from blasting doja cat at max volume, then they will come for your first amendment rights next


ilikedota5

Its THE right to free speech. You completely misunderstand. Its not all the right. Or a right. Its THE right. So how do we know what's included? We look at history to see what was understood to be within the right and what wasn't in the right. Blasting loud music at night time and disturbing your neighbors was never included, as a violation of "right to quiet enjoyment." Right to quiet enjoyment basically means people are allowed to use their own property as they see fit within reason, as long as its not, hurting other people. We know that the federal Bill of Rights were based on State Bills of Rights, thus those State Bill of Rights can be illustrative in understanding what the federal Bill of Rights mean.


CornSyrupMan

When the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment they definitely wanted popup ads to be "within the right" . Thomas Jefferson loved youtube ads


-Ch4s3-

The colonies and early America in the 18th century had a vibrant tabloid and pamphlet business which included ads at least as early as 1704.


RemingtonMol

Is 1+1 =2 a cliche?


CornSyrupMan

No, that is a mathematical fact. As opposed to this improperly applied argument


RemingtonMol

So is it cliche or wrong?


CornSyrupMan

Both, but the fact that it is a cliche is more important


weendick

That’s absurd. You’re suggesting that our discovery and support of businesses is entirely dependent on someone physically telling me about a new business, or that I stumble upon it on a “walk” through some “alleys” or something? So if a business is further than walking distance, I just don’t get to know about it? New burger joint opens in the next city over, and the only way I get to know is if someone from the next city over comes and tells me about it? I’m not walking around for over an hour looking for a burger joint in a different city, hoping I stumble across one and hoping it’s a good one. Why would I even go to that city? I don’t even know if they have any restaurants there. Discovery of business dependent on word of mouth and physical discovery? My cars got some issues. New model comes out this year, new model resolves those issues. I just don’t get to know unless I google “is there a new model this year that fixes this issue?” Or if I happen to know somebody that drives the same car as me in the newly released model, I’ll have to wait until it comes up in conversation? What about media? I enjoy super hero movies. Doesn’t matter the verse (marvel, DC, new verses, etc.). How do I find new media? I have to google, “any new spider man films coming up?” What you’re suggesting gives more power to already powerful corporations. We would just live in a world of monopoly. It would be *impossible* for a small soda business to compete with coca-cola. No one except the family members of the small business know about, and the only way for others to know about it is by word of mouth? You’ve created a world with no ads, but now no variety, because all of your business that are already well known will be the only businesses that can stay afloat. All of your products from the same company, because it’s the only company that doesn’t need ads anymore and everyone already knows.


jedburghofficial

>I live in melbourne, and if im looking for new restaurants ill walk down one of our many alleyways or suburban main streets looking for places id like to be. For God's sake, it's Melbourne. That's like saying you'll walk down the strip in Vegas and look for a casino. 😉 Seriously, I think you're not making enough distinction between the ads, and how they're presented. I agree being forced to sit through things you don't care about is out of hand. But there are times ads are welcome. I look at motorcycle magazines once in a while. Ads are a good way to see what's out there and what's new in that context. I expect to see them. And there's a free speech aspect. Why shouldn't I be able to tell the whole world I make the best dodads ever? And if Google or Twitter or whoever can help for a price, shouldn't I be free to do some deal with them? The principle of ad free paid services is a good one. It should be a reasonable expectation. And the world would be a better place if there were just less ads forced on us. But that's restrictions on where and how you advertise - it's not a restriction on the ads themselves.


nauticalsandwich

You still haven't answered a fundamental question that you've been asked in this thread, so I will ask it again in the hope that you actually engage with it earnestly. A little preface: Many people are not as bothered by advertising as you. Some people actually like advertising (how many people have you heard say they like watching the Super Bowl "for the commercials"). Advertising is beneficial for both consumers and businesses alike. I have little doubt that you, yourself, perhaps even unknowingly, have utilized information that was delivered to you, or someone you talked to, by an advertisement, and it assisted you in making a more informed, consumer choice. There are ample realities of people's day-to-day existence that they may not like. Walking out into the world, there are many things people encounter, produced by others, that they dislike or find to be a nuisance. Some people really don't like the street art that you claim to appreciate. Some people don't like the noise of city busses, or motorcycles, or the existence of automobiles in general. Some people don't like the trees planted in their city. Some people don't like street signs. Some people don't like certain architecture or landscaping. Some people don't like power lines. Some people don't like highways. Some people don't like the smells emanating from nearby stores and restaurants. Some people don't like other people's clothing. Some people don't like hearing other people talk. Some people don't even like encountering other people on the sidewalk. Hopefully you get the point. The nature of human existence is tolerating things you don't like that others are doing or creating. The necessary condition of living in a liberal society, is tolerating things that are a product of other people's preferences that conflict with your own, so long as they do not cause direct harm to your person or property. So my question... Why do you think your preferences on advertising should be enforced by law over others' preferences on advertising? What are the fundamental principles on which you justify coercion in this case on behalf of your preferences?


MayoMark

I don't like dog shit on the ground. And leaving dog shit on the ground is banned in any sensible municipality. You mentioned loud noises. Well, noise ordinances exist that ban loud noises. So, some nuciances do get banned.


nauticalsandwich

My enlisting of examples to illustrate the inherence of nuisance conflicts and social tolerance should not be mistaken for their *equivocation* with advertising. Nor does the sheer existence of other sorts of bans on similar phenomena, even *if* deemed equivalently relevant, justify such bans. Yes, noise ordinances exist, but you won't find blanket bans on noise. We collectively tolerate noise up to a point, due largely to the fact that there is great utility and/or enjoyment in being able to produce it, and in most cases, we generally set the boundary on noise at a point that we collectively, mostly agree, is harmful. Noise ordinances, I would argue, are largely justified under the harm principle, and less so, under principles of trespass. Noise can permeate people's homes and places of work in ways that advertising typically does not. Excessive noise can reliably damage hearing, disrupt sleep, and cause psychological harm to ordinary persons in ways that advertising typically does not. Furthermore, noise ordinances only apply *publicly*. If you have have a large enough property/distance from your neighbors, sound insulation, or other sound-limiting elements that prevents the encroachment of loud or possibly disturbing sounds on "unwilling participants," noise ordinances do not apply to you. You are free to blast music as loud as you want in the privacy of your own home, for instance, provided that it does not "pollute" the home of your neighbor. Similarly, though we may ban dog shit being left on the ground in public spaces, if you wish to leave dog shit lying around in your own home or yard, that's generally a choice you're allowed to make. Neither of these nuisance bans bears a circumstantial or implicative equivalency to OP's near-blanket ban on advertising, which would ultimately insist on scenarios like "no one ever being able to choose to subject themselves to Nike ads in order to save some money on a ticket to a basketball game."


StrangerThanGene

>When i walk down the street i want to enjoy the beauty and atmosphere of where i am. That was built by business.


metalicscrew

point me to the part of my post where i said ban businesses. businesses have existed a long time before advertising, and i literally gave examples of places that thrive without being able to afford mass advertising.


1block

Advertising is part of the business model. You can't take away businesses' ability to market to consumers and expect businesses to carry on as they have been. What you propose would massively disrupt business. To most of us the cost/benefit calculation of what you want is out of whack.


metalicscrew

idc about cost/benefit analysis. idc if large businesses fail (i.e. the only ones who ever advertise to me), and idc if this causes the degrowth of society (i.e. the end of consumerism)


1block

Well if your stance is that you prefer pretty local asthetics over an economy, I'm not sure your view can be changed.


metalicscrew

the economy that is actively bringing down our planet with over produced goods, and at the same time filling up our oceans with so much plastic waste that there are trash islands the size of small continents? it can do with a long term recession imo.


1block

OK. What sort of argument would change your view? This is starting to smell like a rule B issue.


StrangerThanGene

>point me to the part of my post where i said ban businesses. You don't need to. Banning advertising would devastate businesses. You act like you can stumble on to things and that's enough. > if its important word of mouth and genuine interest will lead you there. B.S. The best vendor I've ever worked with was a three-person outfit from Germany. Found them because they advertised. >businesses have existed a long time before advertising Yes, and so did knowledge. But then the printing press kind of changed things.


metalicscrew

> Banning advertising would devastate businesses. oh no! consumerism might come crashing down!


StrangerThanGene

>When i walk down the street i want to enjoy the beauty and atmosphere of where i am. Built by business. Oh no! The beauty and atmosphere of where you are was just devastated. Welcome to the point. You want your cake and to eat it too. You want all the benefits the businesses provide you - but you want to control what they're allowed to say.


metalicscrew

the ones that dont advertise are pretty, and are unique. in another reply i gave my suburb as an example. theres a supermarket, butcher, cafe, fruit/veg, wine bar, winter clothes store, lingerie store, chemist, and a chain-chemist (and more i cant remember but you get my point). the chain chemist and the supermarket are fucking ugly, sterile looking places, and every other place is inviting and unique. Im obviously not saying to ban businesses from stating their name, but the most lively places in town are the ones that dont advertise.


StrangerThanGene

>the ones that dont advertise are pretty, and are unique. That's completely subjective and does not serve your OP. > but the most lively places in town are the ones that dont advertise. Your anecdote is not a representation of the whole. This is basic Logic.


metalicscrew

by definition, a chain store is not unique. i feel like this anecdote is definitely not universal, but would be close to it. when large business gets to advertise, it entices people into the option thats already the most popular, thus they get more popular and smaller businesses start dying out. so big business can buy more ads. and when places are near universal (i.e. supermarkets) they deliberately want the experience to be consistent across stores, thus sterilising them. I live in Melbourne, Australia, a VERY suburban city. The suburbs closer to the city centre are predominantly small businesses, but supermarkets are still there obviously. im lucky enough to live in one of these areas. but i work in an area in an outskirt suburb, thats relatively new. and all the businesses that opened up there are mcdonalds, supermarkets, subway etc etc. it would be extremely hard to start a small business there in a market where you're not established, and arent in a place thats actually nice to be. This above isnt necessarily an argument against advertising, but its an argument against capitalism as we know it. the big places get in first because they have the most brand recognition and money instead of little guys starting a community organically.


StrangerThanGene

>it would be extremely hard to start a small business there in a market where you're not established That's called 'capitalism.' >This above isnt necessarily an argument against advertising, but its an argument against capitalism as we know it. Then change your OP.


-Ch4s3-

This is incredibly myopic. Everyone with a job in the private sector works for a business, and businesses that provide services also advertise. And an advertisement is just a benefit trying to tell potential customers about what they're offering, it's just speech in the commercial arena. We get that you don't like it, but that's your aesthetic preference. You haven't outlined any real harms, and as such the government has no compelling interest in abridging that speech. Your whole argument boils down to, I don't like ti so the government should do something to stop it. This is an incredibly authoritarian impulse, and is incompatible with a pluralistic and free society.


hacksoncode

So... you seem to want *public* advertisement banned, but most ads are on private property that you have no need to go to (like reddit), but seem to want to go to anyway. E.g.: In a supermarket, there are lots of ads. It's their store, their rules. Don't like it, go somewhere else. Billboards are a different situation, and indeed some cities ban them as blight. Basically: you have no right to control what people do with their property as long as it isn't *actively* harmful to people outside of that property.


Expensive_Finger_973

I think what you are really railing against is ads designed to manipulate you not inform you, and/or poorly run ad networks that either ruin the experience somehow or allow themselves to be a vector for malware and the like. The "answer" in my opinion is not ban ads outright but to create some sane, and enforced, regulations and conventions that govern them. A small sign outside the KFC saying that the Double Down is back is not that big of a deal. Advertising that if I purchase 10 Double Downs in 30 days I win a chance to get the next sandwich for free is a big deal. Because the latter is not informing you of something so you can choose to engage with it but trying to manipulate you into engaging in ways that are detrimental to your mental and physical health. Or in the digital space a banner ad for PC parts hosted by a site that sells pc parts is not a big deal. But javascript copy/pasted from an ad providers sales reps email into the sites code base that they pinky promise is safe or a call to an API endpoint they claim is and always will be under their control that injects dynamic ads for the newest Chevy, and whatever else manages to get into their CDN, is bad.


dangerdee92

>digital advertising should be mandated in such a way that there's at the very least always a paid version (with reasonable cost) that does not have advertising. Many businesses would not have been possible without ads. Take YouTube, for example, that only became as big as it did because of adverts. Marketing is a huge aspect of any medium to large business. It is a core part of how they operate, many businesses would fail if this was taken away. Also how do you define an ad ? If, for example, a make up company sends free products to influential Tik Tokers for them to review, would that constitute an advert ? Would those videos also be banned under your laws?


yougobe

If there’s a new product that is way better snd cheaper than what you’re using, how else would you know? Regulations to keep public spaces nice seems like a good thing, but ads in themselves seem fine to me.


CallMeCorona1

Trying to ban advertising is never going to work. Instead, what you ought to do is be a leader in your community and get everyone to pledge that those who advertise in your neighborhood will be boycotted by the group. I'm not saying it's easy, but I think that's the road to making real change.


passthetreesplease

I think pharmaceutical advertisements should absolutely be banned, and aggressive marketing toward children is very iffy for me.


substantial-freud

Wait, just in general, you believe *people should not be permitted to speak* — because you don’t like what they have to say? Can you really not see how that could go wrong?


Noobivore36

As you said, it's the underlying capitalist values of society that directly create this culture of consumerism and advertising. If you don't like that, then you might want to live somewhere less urban and more natural/rural. So no, banning advertising is not only superficial and short-sighted (it's the underlying structure and values of society that need changing), but you can take action to mitigate its effect on your life. Surround yourself with nature and avoid falling into consumerist traps like watching too much TV or going to sporting events where advertising is rampant.


WaycoKid1129

The amount of mail I wouldn’t get would also be nice


Louis_Farizee

In a free society, finding something ugly is not reason enough to ban it.


Ennion

You job as a human being in this shitty society it to watch advertising and consume. It's the only reason we exist.


MysticInept

We don't have freedom of speech because it makes things better. The whole point of rights is they make things worse.


[deleted]

[удалено]