Allowing advertising quickly makes everything about getting more eyeballs and therefore more income from advertising. Users aren't the customer, they are the product.

That directly leads to all these addictive dark patterns.

All human laws are arbitrary in the sense that they have no natural precedents. We made them up because they make society better when we have them. Sometimes they end up not doing that so we change them as needed. In this case, a lot of people think society would be improved if we created this one.

PBS and BBC are both pretty well regarded and receive public funding.

Why would a government elected in a democracy be less trustworthy than a few private individuals? Do heads of large corporations not have an interest in controlling information?

"You criticize society, yet you participate in it".

I have and do pay for website access. That doesn't mean much if the current model flocks to no paid services.

Ooh they should do that on planes!

> Can you think of a singe freedom you enjoy that isn’t in one way or another supported by some form of regulation?

Regulations can protect freedoms, but they don’t create them. Freedom is inherent. Regulations protect.

Yeah most of them

Viewing this thread, and the back and forth of it, I need to say something.

Advertising sucks in this thread too.

By that I mean, people are not speaking plainly, and it is almost ingrained into our societies now. We "sell" our position in a discussion, a debate.

For example, regulation does curtail freedom. Completely.

However, lack of regulation can harm people. Significantly.

Thus, regulation does not give people more freedom, it can however reduce harm.

In democratic nations, often judges will weigh these two things, when determining if a regulation passes the muster. In my country, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and often judges will determine if a challenged regulation is of sufficient, required public good, whilst not overtly reducing freedom of the individual.

This is a mature conversation.

Advertising is not.

A primary example I've seen in the US, is people calling immigrants "undocumented" on one side, and "criminals" on the other. This is, of course, a reduction in nuance, and designed to advertise a position merely with the words used. And it is a societal sickness.

An illegal alien is just that, and using that term confers no judgement, for it is simply fact.

There was a time when politics were not first and fore in terms of the use of language. The current trend to be "touchy feely" over use of language, and find great offense at the use of language, does nothing other than stop debate. Reduce discussion. Cause schism instead of collaboration.

And there are those around us, which prefer that.

Don't feed them.

I mean really I work in filmmaking. Ads just fund most of my business.

Are you willing to share rough numbers? Totally understand if not, just curious. Been thinking about something like this to get away from the AI force-feeding.

I work on the production end. I’m a producer and production manager for live-action ads.

Commercial speech rights are still part of the "free speech" bundle of 1A protections.

If he's from the US, he's technically correct. That's the high level argument of Citizens United.

Granted, that's proven to be a horrible concept. So let's repeal that.

It used to be.

It really isn't. It was so much more than that but a couple decades of "innovation" and here we are.

You know there's individuals who will unironically defend any dark pattern one cares to point to so your take here is pretty unsurprising. I feel like this is getting excited over finding a kernel of undigested corn in a random turd.