[RandomLensman]

Could we better, for sure. But some enlightened dictatorship will not solve our problems. I really don't understand how these old and defunct dreams of the new society and the new human can still be that attractive.

None of these problems are really new and have been looked for millennia by now.

[ben_w]

That this conversation went:

"Let's ban advertising" "How?" "Laws" "It's depressing people can't think of this" "Enlightened dictatorship isn't going to help"

…suggests thinking in a false dichotomy. We don't need a dictatorship, enlightened or otherwise, to have laws.

[RandomLensman]

The suggestion was some expert based system...

[ben_w]

Name a government which doesn't use experts when determining the law.

(No Brexit jokes allowed :P)

[ToucanLoucan]

Well if you expand that slightly to "Name a government which use experts who don't have ties to the private sector they stand to benefit from by watering down regulations" the number of governments drops substantially.

[ben_w]

Only if that's "no experts with any ties" rather than "any experts with no ties". And the governments generally know about this risk too.

(Whether they care about the risk or see it as an opportunity for enriching themselves, that's a separate matter).

[RandomLensman]

Their impact is often low or even ignored. They are not in charge.

[ben_w]

That would still be the case; I don't see what justification you could have for describing the suggestion above a dictatorship.