> ban digital advertisement at a federal level

This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting.

It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.

▲

dkdcio 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea

The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising is a simple and realistic idea, without any constitutional road blocks or practical objections, is what I mean when I say these comment sections are just angry bloviating with unrealistic expectations.

If you think banning all advertising is “simple” then I don’t know what to say, but there isn’t a real conversation here.

▲

ChrisMarshallNY an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Just FYI. For a very long time, strong alcohol ads were banned on TV, and the same with tobacco.

I don't watch regular TV, anymore, so I don't know if it still is in place.

Mentioning "banning advertising" on HN is bound to draw downvotes. A significant number of HN members make money directly, or indirectly, from digital advertising.

It's like walking into a mosque, and demanding they allow drinking.

Won't end well.

	▲	fn-mote an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In this case, the suggestion of banning advertising is drawing downvotes from me because I see it as politically unrealistic. At least in my state, there isn’t even a ban on advertising online gambling!! It is quite a stretch to think we could move from there to banning any kind of advertising. It has nothing to do with the fact that a bunch of HN readers make money from ads. I don’t.

▲

dkdcio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

so is it a pitchfork idea? I want Mark’s head? or it’s impractical? you’ve changed your apprehension to my idea twice in two comments

constitutional roadblock…to banning digital advertisement? please do explain!

I didn’t claim it’s easy to get it done in the real world, but it’s not a reactive/vindictive pitchfork idea. it’s really not that hard, if people wanted it we’ve banned plenty of things at the federal level in this country over the years (the hard part is of course people realizing how detrimental digital advertising is)

it’s a simple solution that’s very effective. obviously any large-scale change, to fix a large-scale problem, is not “simple” to implement, but it’s also not fucking rocket science on this one mate

you’re clearly not having a conversation in good faith. you asked, I answered, I’m done with this

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I’ve not changed anything, I was asking for realistic suggestions. You’re throwing out unrealistic suggestions.

Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple and effective.

These are just silly ways of thinking about the world.

▲

dkdcio 2 hours ago | parent [-]

you’re just doing ad hominems and strawmans. I’m not suggesting banning anything other than digital advertisement. you’re not open to having a productive discussion about it, just misdirection and whataboutism

please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument

p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually given it the thought you’re pretending to and still reach that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at you

	▲	Aurornis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! You don’t need to hear my argument against it. The fact that advertising your services is free speech is well established. It’s a major challenge for movements like those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising. Also, if you can’t see how I’ve been addressing your arguments and you think it’s all ad hominem then I don’t think there’s any real conversation to be had here. Between all the downvotes you’re collecting and the weird attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it’s ad hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at this point.

▲

flag_fagger an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising is a simple and realistic idea, without any constitutional road blocks

Of course not, clearly you just need a captured congress and an EO. Can’t be too hard to find a reason to turn Trump against Zuckerberg.

▲

squigz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2...

Why do you think it would be ineffective here?

I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms.

They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising.

The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.

	▲	squigz 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.