This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
(Does this count as CW? Happy to post it somewhere else if that would be more appropriate.)
I really liked the idea of banning advertising from this blog post (though the post itself is somewhat poorly written and light on the details). HN has a lively discussion of it. I've seen some mentions of this idea here and there but never a really good analysis on it. And I want to change that!
The first step is of course to tighten up the definitions. The most important is to define advertising. I would define it as:
(Maybe the resident lawyers here could have a crack at cleaning this up?)
The underlying theory of harm is that party C is getting inaccurate information designed (often very well designed) to manipulate them into a decision not in their interests. Note that crowding out good information is also very much part of the harm. If C is getting good information from sources not paid for it, it is reasonable that these unpaid sources won't put as much effort into disseminating information as sources paid to spread information (which presumably won't be as truthful due to the conflicting interests from party A).
To clean up potential fuzzy boundaries (I'm sure I've missed a bunch):
So, what is illegal?
Why do I want this?
Possible objections?
Any thoughts?
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.
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)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link