Well, on that benefit: you could get the same information from non-for-profit sources, in a more neutral and ethical way.
On the banning topic: I’m from Spain, and here smoking is not banned, but heavily restricted, and avdertisement on it it’s banned everywhere. Basically, as a society we want to avoid more people being harmed, so we restrict it.
As with anything, it’s not a matter of full ban or full allow, but if it is mostly harmful for the people and the planet, yeah, it should be heavily restricted. Like pollution, like drugs, and so many other things… When someone’s freedom affects everyone basics rights, we ought to act.
Well, on that benefit: you could get the same information from non-for-profit sources, in a more neutral and ethical way.
Not in dispute, but that’s a non sequitur. Just because a better alternative is possible doesn’t mean the existing thing provides no benefit - otherwise you’d be saying food stamps have no benefit because the benefit could be provided more efficiently by a better system, etc.
When someone’s freedom affects everyone basics rights, we ought to act.
Really puzzled how any of the things you’ve mentioned, except pollution, “affect everyone’s basic rights”. Do people have a basic right to never be spoken to by someone with a motive that renders them possibly biased (even though the existence of that motive is generally obvious)? That’s all for-profit advertizing is.
The idea that you should be allowed to steal from someone (I assumed that by ‘banned’ you are imagining the punishment being a fine) for speaking to others with a bias is absurd, and if you were to believe that consistently, it would also apply to lots of ordinary peer to peer conversation.
just because something is harmful doesn’t mean it should be banned. one doesn’t have the right to force everyone else to make only the best choices.
for example, smoking is harmful, but should not be banned.
arguing to people that climate change isn’t happening is harmful, but should not be banned.
actually, advertizing can benefit the consumer, by informing them of the existence off something that might help them.
Well, on that benefit: you could get the same information from non-for-profit sources, in a more neutral and ethical way.
On the banning topic: I’m from Spain, and here smoking is not banned, but heavily restricted, and avdertisement on it it’s banned everywhere. Basically, as a society we want to avoid more people being harmed, so we restrict it.
As with anything, it’s not a matter of full ban or full allow, but if it is mostly harmful for the people and the planet, yeah, it should be heavily restricted. Like pollution, like drugs, and so many other things… When someone’s freedom affects everyone basics rights, we ought to act.
Not in dispute, but that’s a non sequitur. Just because a better alternative is possible doesn’t mean the existing thing provides no benefit - otherwise you’d be saying food stamps have no benefit because the benefit could be provided more efficiently by a better system, etc.
Really puzzled how any of the things you’ve mentioned, except pollution, “affect everyone’s basic rights”. Do people have a basic right to never be spoken to by someone with a motive that renders them possibly biased (even though the existence of that motive is generally obvious)? That’s all for-profit advertizing is.
The idea that you should be allowed to steal from someone (I assumed that by ‘banned’ you are imagining the punishment being a fine) for speaking to others with a bias is absurd, and if you were to believe that consistently, it would also apply to lots of ordinary peer to peer conversation.