Remix.run Logo
0x000xca0xfe a day ago

Then the solution could be just like the solution to tobacco addiction: tax social media companies HARD, tax all advertising on social media 10x, 20x, or ban advertising on/for social media outright, ban advertising of kids products, ban showing use of social media in movies not rated 18, ... the problem will vanish just like cigarettes.

But no, that's not what governments are doing. They want control and surveillance.

matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | next [-]

Taxing or banning advertising alone would fix literally everything that is wrong with the web.

jryle70 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Do you know what happen when advertising is banned? It would go underground -- product placement, contest, merchandises, and so on. Advertising existed as soon as commerce became a thing, probably thousand years ago. It can't be banned. I wouldn't vote for that.

Regulation, on the other hand, is fine. How? I don't know.

matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | next [-]

> It can't be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

lostmsu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It can't be banned

Sure it can. I don't see how being old makes it immune.

jimmygrapes a day ago | parent [-]

It'd be tough to phrase it right. Imagine that The Ones Who Ban Things decide to write something interpretable as essentially "nobody is allowed to inform others about things". The process of distilling any ad banning law into applicable testing of that law would be pretty scary to me

kilburn a day ago | parent [-]

Other legistlation plays a similar game:

- Slandering laws set a limit for what you can say about others

- Copyright laws set a limit on what you can share with others under which circumstances

Both those things seem similarly complicated to implement and yet we have them.

account42 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're saying that as if we don't already have all these.

SecretDreams 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would definitely help and I'd support it. I would much rather pay a fixed cost to use the internet and remove all the poisonous crap we're stuck dealing with to "keep the internet free".

akoboldfrying a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Taxing may be a good way to restore balance. Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc. -- basically everything we've become accustomed to having for free will want a monthly subscription.

account42 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc.

Good.

frm88 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the most sensible solution to this problem I have read on HN in the 2 years I've been here. Think of the positive effects taxation would have: no whack-a-mole for every loophole the industry will find. No single fines after costly court battles that are basically pocket change for Zuckerberg et al. Adherence to polluter-pays-priciple. Make it so that if they stop advertising, the tax expires. Use the tax money for better infrastructue. Make the tax progressive - the more ads, the higher the tax.

Added benefit: even adults will be less exposed to addictive material.

What would be the cons of this?