[Intermernet]

> Advertising isn't supposed to be a form of behavior modification. It's supposed to be a means of informing consumers so that they can make good purchasing decisions which will drive a free market in such a way that the _objectively_best_ products get the biggest reward.

That's very idealistic, and not very realistic. That role is filled by genuinely unbiased product reviews and recommendations from trusted friends and families.

Lots of companies who know they don't make the "objectively best products" still try to manipulate people into purchasing their products.

Advertisers very rarely provide value to consumers as they are designed to favor, and generate profit for the seller.

[Retra]

>That role is filled by genuinely unbiased product reviews and recommendations from trusted friends and families.

This is exactly what you would be left with if advertising weren't legal. And in fact, the only good justification for allowing it to be legal is this idealistic view.

But yes, I know what the status quo currently is. I'm saying that it is on shaky moral footing. That it ought not be this way, because it offers no justifiable benefit to society for it to remain as such.

[aninhumer]

>And in fact, the only good justification for allowing it to be legal is this idealistic view.

Well that, and the first amendment.

I tend to agree that advertising is a bad value proposition, for both producers and consumers, but I'm not sure how much the government can do about it without restricting speech.

I can however imagine a cultural shift, such that the majority of people so actively avoid advertising, that the market for it is vastly reduced.

[Intermernet]

I agree with you completely, but I do find the first amendment argument questionable with regards to advertising.

Can advertisers make completely false claims and still be protected by the first amendment? It's still free speech, but the speech translates to other crimes, such as (in the worst cases) fraud. Where is the line in the sand here?

EDIT: To simplify: As an individual, to what degree is my right to free speech mitigated if I use that speech to mislead others? I presume that con-artists can't use "free speech" as a defense...

[aninhumer]

>Where is the line in the sand here?

Well that's kind of the problem isn't it? Sure, you can criminalise outright lying (and perhaps we could do better at that), but things get a lot murkier as soon as you go any further.

Besides, most of the manipulation of advertising isn't about explicitly misinforming people, it's about associations and familiarity. You can't ban an advert saying "Coca cola exists", but it's still going to mean people end up choosing it over potentially better options.

[Retra]

That's the core problem. Generally speaking, when you've got some questionable/debatable restriction like that, you want to err on the side of being permissive rather than restrictive.

But the way we do things now just happens to be the way they are done. For instance, there could be restrictions on where and when you're allowed to advertise, and how you're to present the information. I'm not saying that's the way things should be done, just that alternatives to the status quo are not necessarily infringing on your rights.