[sokoloff]

It would seem that review sites would be a massive beneficiary of a ban on advertising; whether or not they review in a Consumer Reviews (scientifically backed, generally) or Bob’s Internet Affiliate Shills or Celebrity Chris’ Favorites manner is left as an exercise to the reader.

[dane-pgp]

At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal.

Also, if people found themselves regretting purchases of products and services recommended to them by a particular review site, they would be free to use a different review site in future.

Hopefully these sites wouldn't operate on a non-refundable yearly-subscription model, making people reluctant to "waste" the money they had spent. The business model for such sites might be a little tricky, since they shouldn't really be making money from affiliate fees, and web advertising wouldn't exist in this world either.

[andrepd]

>At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal.

This is the crux of the question. I don't consent to any of it, but just walking down the streets I'm targeted by an assault on my brain from every direction. Ditto picking up my phone or browsing the web (were it not for uBlock). It's not ethical.

As for review sites being shilled, mandate big disclaimers detailing sponsors (shill praising product X would have to have a big banner saying "this content paid for by X", as its already done in other contexts). Reputation would eventually form around trusted reviwers.