| within the first paragraph my alerts went on... '...and the ads are for things people can't afford, or don't need'... seriously? Did she just say that and everyone is fine with it? So... you are to save poor stupid people from being unduly influenced by advertising? This whole article reads like a dystopian mind-warp campaign of 'controlled influence' >>> "messy capitalist freedom promoting things we don't think is good for people". Who is we? People with university degrees having too much time on their hands because they got the useless ones? "Let's ban flying ads, diesel car ads, gambling ads, burger ads, the masses can't be trusted, adds for veganism, social justice, yoga, and gym memberships? ... Well... sounds good! Let's have some of those!" The latter are of course fully informative, only have your best interests at heart, are not selling a lifestyle with brand imagery abusing decades of market research to push their product for financial gains? I for one welcome our new ad-regulators. I definitely don't want to be victimized any longer by meaty burger-ads that make me fat and hurt the environment... /s That being said: I'd like less ads. As someone who uses an adblocker + noscript heavily, consumes next to no media (except books, old movies downloaded from the net), has no television, doesn't go to the cinema, doesn't follow the news, read magazines or have social media... really the only time I ever am exposed to ads might be outdoors. I'm sure they influence brand recognition without me noticing. I'd like less of them, but when someone argues for 'less ads... especially less of the wrong ones'... please go away from the hole you crawled out of and let people live their lives! Ban them outright or take measures to limit their number indiscriminately of what they're about. Or don't, but don't impose your moral standards unto me and the world! |