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

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

  • FrChazzz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’ve had adblockers on my browsers for years and pay for ad-free streaming. I easily went over a decade without seeing an ad on a screen in my own home. But when I’d go to a restaurant that had TVs (or to my mom’s house where she’d run the TV constantly) I’d marvel at how unwatchable it was. Just a constant interruption.

    My wife has a friend who produced a TV series for Tubi and so we signed up to check it out and, wow. I had to tap out of watching it because of the ads. Just completely obnoxious and loud.

  • slappypantsgo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Let’s ban all persuasive advertising! No reason not to let people make a list of features or something, like a notification, but that’s it.

  • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    How exactly do you define advertising? An overly broad definition would forbid, for example, a dentist from putting a sign in front of their office saying they’re a dentist.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Then we’d have a centrally-planned economy I guess. I don’t really see how a free market would work without advertising.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    #YES, PLEASE.

    I have been fighting advertising in my own way since the early 2000s:

    • I abandoned broadcast radio in the mid-1990s. I can’t recall the last time I turned on a car radio.
    • I abandoned broadcast TV in 2001
    • I jumped on board with Adblock the moment it was released for Phoenix (now Firefox) back in 2004
    • The lone streaming service I actually subscribe to is the cheapest non-advertising tier available
    • Torrenting covers many of the remaining gaps
    • Even my Internet Radio stations are chosen primarily through lack of advertising.

    It’s gotten to the point where stumbling across an ad is the mental equivalent to nails on a chalkboard.

  • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ultimately some ads will become illegal as legit advertisers (large corps), get pissed off at all the dick pill ads mixed in with their content.

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I see advertising as a necessary evil. It helps small businesses take off and stay afloat (especially when alternatives for being funded aren’t viable for them), but at the same time it basically promotes corporate greed by shoving ads down our throats.

    Abolishing advertising entirely would be improbable. I just want it to be toned down to the point where we’re all comfortable with it. Too much of a good thing inevitably becomes a bad thing. But too little of a good thing is also a bad thing. So things should be taken in moderation. In the case of advertising, the first statement applies; there’s way too much of it, it’s really in-your-face and disruptive, and we’re all getting sick of it.

  • blorps is here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    The thing is I don’t think I would mind advertising if it wasn’t shoved down my throat 24/7. The fact I can’t read a webpage without ads blocking everything, I can’t watch TV without more than half of the show’s runtime being ads in and out of segments, I can’t even step outside without seeing the billboard or another 5 ads shoved in my mailbox!

    I get 15 some-odd emails a day from different companies trying to get me to buy things. I block them and they pop up with a different email address. I can’t even open my email without ads popping up masquerading as actual messages (Gmail). Don’t get me started on the entire Google app thing.

    I can’t open an online map without getting SPONSERED listings. And places I use the app to order from try to advertise me their own food WHILE I’M ORDERING. Panda Express started asking me if I want a subscription to Starz or whatever.

    NO. NO. NO.

    I’m exhausted. I want to go to a store without being immediately inundated with ads or sellers. “Buy this!” NO. LEAVE ME ALONE.

    I’m overwhelmed. I’m overstimulated. I’m done. I don’t care how “quirky” or “flashy” or “hip” your ads are. I refuse to buy anything I see ads for now. It’s too much. Shut up.

    TL;DR: we need controls and limits to who, what, where, and how things are advertised. It should be an enforcable crime to have ads louder than a certain decibel for one. But it’s not enforced and fines aren’t more than a drop in the bucket. I doubt I’ll see it in ny lifetime.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    As I sat down this morning to enjoy my warm and full-flavored Folger’s coffee, it got me thinking: traditional advertising might disappear, but something sneakier would inevitably fill the void: product placement.

  • Owl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    considering tons of free services are paid for with advertising, a lot of such services would cease to exist/be free.

    be it websites such as youtube and streaming sites like twitch, or almost any website for that matter.

    someone made a brand of water thats free and is entirely paid by advertising printed on the bottle, that would be gone too.

    hell, i hate ads, but considering i use ublock, i havent seen any in years, and in real life you can just not look at them.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m sure they would change their business model with some free watching hours to lure you in, and then once they become valuable to you, you have to pay to continue watching. Or something like that.

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Appealing idea obviously. But I think if everything else stayed the same, and suddenly ads were banned, we’d just see a lot of shady underhand tactics emerging.

    There’s already lots of grey areas, influencers who are supposedly just talking about things they like but have some relationship with a brand they happen to promote… Is no one ever allowed to discuss a product? Can I promote Librewolf to people? But only as long as librewolf don’t give me any free swag? Do reviewers no longer get free copies of book or free screenings of movies? What if I contributed to a project, can I talk about my own work on my own channels?

    The viral marketing stuff of the 90s was pretty weird. Dreadful though target online ads are, gangs of people going around the real world trying to influence word of mouth feels even more dystopian. Although, if big companies were encouraging staff to volunteer and get involved in community projects, (and giving them time off to do them) with the understanding that they’d “innocently mention” that they work at Nike, maybe that would be better than the current setup.

    In the past, physical buildings often served as advertising. Lots of high end stores on shopping streets are mostly there as a physical advert for the brand, not because they particularly make a profit. Do we really want McDonald’s expanding into real estate to start making building reminiscent of the golden arches in visible locations? But maybe even if these alternatives would be intrusive in new and horrible ways, they are limited by being in the real world, and thus not infinitely scalable. And if city centres are revived by brands desperate for attention, and corporations has be involved in communities on an individual employee level, instead of just sticking a logo on something, maybe that would counterbalance the bad with some good.

    • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Thanks for the thorough comment. I’d say your assessment is accurate. As it is, McDonald’s is a real estate company that also sells hamburgers. Corporations are not waiting for advertisement to be banned before they do those things. They’ve been doing them for a while. We should ban advertisement. The dystopia arrived a while ago.

    • huppakee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I agree, as in many more cases it is better to regulate than it is to forbid. Companies and consumers will find a way.

  • CherryLips@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Interesting concept. Over the last few decades we have seen cigarettes/vapes alcohol, small plastics etc come under scrutiny as they harm people’s health. But there are physical objects that harm physical health.

    Advertising is much more subjective I tend of what constitutes harm, and mental health is again still on the back foot compared to body health.

    In some places we have seen bans on cigarette adverting and even bans on cigarettes. So at a small scale it can be implemented.

    I loved ads as a kid. It shaped my career, but it’s an out of control monster that needs looking at. I am growing to hate it.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

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

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

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

    • stormeuh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

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

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

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

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


      The concept:

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

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

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

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Lmao, this is absolute defeatist nonsense.

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

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

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

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

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

            Laws change.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

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

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

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

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

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Graffiti, you say? So it was probably illegal.

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

        • zedage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

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

      • Zachariah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

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

        • AugustWest@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

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

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

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

          There is balance to be had…

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

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

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

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

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

            • sinceasdf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 days ago

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

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

            • AugustWest@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 days ago

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

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

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

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

              I miss the old internet too.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

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

          There’s a pretty big difference.