|
|
|
|
|
|
by nobody9999
687 days ago
|
|
|
I'd add that even though Advertising (well, more specifically, Advertising Market Research) put a roof over my head, clothes on my back and food in my belly for the first 18 years of my life, then for another five years in my early 20s, I despise advertisers, advertising and all that goes with it. I take great pains to avoid viewing/hearing ads anywhere and wish that scum would just go away. I'm not "rooting for the ad industry"[0]. In fact, I wish it was abolished or at least heavily regulated. That said, forcing folks to endorse speech they don't wish to endorse, and/or forcing folks to pay to endorse such speech (showing an ad next to a tweet serves as a de facto endorsement of that tweet) is wrong. And as much as I hate advertisers, I love freedom of expression and freedom of (or, in this case, from) association for everyone, including those triple-damned advertisers. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41175240 |
|
|
Ehh, suppose advertisers didn't want to have ads appear next to tweets by users of specific ethinicities or religious affiliations? Do you think they should have a choice there, or should they not be given one?
I mean, maybe at social platform level granularity it's just economic freedom of association. But you made a generic argument (or at least that's how it reads)