guajalote
1d ago
I'm not sure I accept your premise that advertising is a net negative. There are certainly many things I have gladly purchased that I found out about through advertising. My intuitive sense is that ads have had a net positive or at least net neutral impact on my life, not a negative one.
But I will accept the premise that we want to ban ads for the sake of the discussion.
Advertising is whenever party A pays party B to give unsolicited information to party C.
As one of the "resident lawyers" I don't think there's a way to meaningfully define advertising in a way that only captures what you want to capture.
First off, your definition doesn't stop party A from directly advertising to party C. This is the first major loophole, and it's incredibly easy to get around. Big companies just increase the size of their marketing departments and do all ads in house. Little companies can't afford to do this and just get crushed. Bad outcome.
Second, there's the issue of "pays." In the example you give, you seem to interpret this narrowly to mean "give money" but there are many ways to compensate or incentivize people to do things without directly paying them. So this is another relatively easy loophole to exploit.
Third, there's "unsolicited information" which is extremely nebulous and includes many things we don't generally think of as advertising:
-
Suppose I turn on the TV hoping to watch the local news. The news broadcast is interrupted by a weather report. I didn't want to see the weather report because I get the weather from an app on my phone. Isn't the weather report an example of party A (the station) paying party B (the weatherman) to give unsolicited information (the forecast) to party C (me)?
-
Suppose I pull up behind a car with bumper stickers on it (e.g. "Baby on Board" or the Christian fish). Isn't this an example of party A (the driver) paying party B (the maker of the bumper sticker) to give unsolicited information (the info on the bumper sticker) to party C (me)?
-
Suppose I buy clothing with the brand's logo prominently displayed on it. Isn't this an example of party A (me) paying party B (the clothing company) to give unsolicited information (the clothing brand I am wearing) to party C (others around me)?
-
Suppose I hire an artist to make me a large sign supporting my favorite politician and I place it in my front yard. Isn't this an example of party A (me) paying party B (the artist) to give unsolicited information (my political views) to party C (others around me)?
guajalote
1d ago
Courts instruct juries on the meaning of the law, then the jury is supposed to apply that meaning to the facts. So, at least in theory, the jury is not supposed to be determining the meaning of the law.
More importantly, jury trials are extremely expensive, and companies want to know what's legal and what's illegal without having to spend ungodly amounts of time and money litigating in Court. Clearly written laws save a lot of money and are easier and cheaper to enforce.
guajalote
1d ago
The argument is that different people have different preferences with respect to ads. Some people don't really mind them and will accept them in exchange for cost savings. Other people hate ads and have the option to make choices to avoid them. Thus the current system allows everyone to satisfy their preferences reasonably well. A system that banned ads would only allow one of these groups to satisfy their preferences.
guajalote
15d ago
As a lawyer I just want to mention that not all lawyers adhere to what you call the "lawyer"-side viewpoint. In particular, trial litigation tends to be highly meritocratic because you are constantly going head-to-head against other attorneys in hearings and trials. Being good at your job and having reputation for credibility goes a long way.
guajalote
16d ago
So far as I can tell, what this guy is saying is true for a majority of men who have young kids. Pretty much every father I know has admitted that he can't wait until his kids are older, and that simply being around them is exhausting.
I'm a father of a one-year-old and I'm also an attorney who works a lot of hours. It's true that taking care of young kids gets exhausting or boring at a certain point. On the other hand, it's still way less exhausting and stressful than working an actual job.
If I had to choose between spending 12 hours a day with my kid and 10 minutes a day working, or spending 12 hours a day working and 10 minutes with my kid (assuming all other things, including income, remained equal) I would certainly choose to spend 12 hours a day with my kid. Yes, it would get exhausting at times, but it's still way more fun and rewarding than work. I have a hard time understanding the psychology of anyone who would choose otherwise.
This is a loophole you can drive a truck through. "Party B isn't giving unsolicited information to Party C. Party B is giving it to the broadcast station, who is then broadcasting it to Party C."
More options
Context Copy link