I know, and that sucks. But outright banning something that has its benefits has always been detrimental (not to mention, they’d just find sneakier ways to do it and it’d be worse for everyone). We need regulations, a lot of them, not banning entirely.
Plus who are we kidding, everyone in power is so deep into the advertising/propaganda industry that neither of those options have a decent chance of happening in our lifetime.
Yup. The whole article and “we should bring back bullying” rhetoric (even used ironically) just reeks of someone who doesn’t like “uncool” people and finally found a morally valid excuse to hate on some of them.
Really, not much different from misogynists pointing at random female tiktok influencers and concluding “See? This is why women are dumb and we need sexism”.
That’s a generalization. The White Rose was doing “advertising”, and I think that’s all but “by the wealthy, against the working class”.
Advertising has its place and can be beneficial to society, it just needs regulations (admittedly, A LOT of them).
We all know if every other way of advertising was banned, they’d start paying (or “incentivizing”) millions of people to “do word of mouth” for them.
And then we’ll have those people polluting every online space with unlabeled ads. No thank you.
That makes sense when it harms business being done in that country, people’s opportunity to find jobs and stuff like that.
But blocking people from working for free on open source projects where there’s nothing to be gained is harming progress, not individuals or countries. That’s not what sanctions were made for.
Here’s an archive link 7 days later, with 800+ replies
They’re not “millions” right now. Imagine every single dollar they currently spend for different types of advertising, all used as budget for astroturfing. It would turn every online space into bots talking to themselves and nothing else.