[frogpelt]

I believe if three people come in to my restaurant and ask for fish tacos, it is an inherently moral thing for me to begin selling fish tacos. Furthermore, it is inherently moral for me to advertise that I have started selling fish tacos so everyone else will know.

[Nadya]

I agree to both of your points [0], but you ignore a third. What about people who have already heard you are selling fish tacos, don't care, and want you to shut up? Or people who have preemptively decided that they don't want to hear any advertisements for fish tacos, due to allergies, they simply don't care to hear about fish tacos.

How long should they hear that you are selling fish tacos before deciding to avoid you? Should they ever have to hear you advertising your fish tacos?

Note that I said "avoid you" and not "prevent you from advertising your fish tacos". You're free to advertise to other people - but people who have decided they want nothing to do with fish tacos should be free to avoid you.

You provide no compelling reason for why people not interested in fish tacos shouldn't be able to avoid you and your fish taco advertisements.

[0] For the sake of argument I'll consider that selling fish tacos to people who desire fish tacos to be a morally just decision and entertain the thought that other people want fish tacos who may not have heard you are selling fish tacos, and thus benefit from your advertisement is also moral. Morals are relative and so nothing is "inherently moral" though I don't want to confuse you by disagreeing with you on this point.

[frogpelt]

I guess that's just tough for them.

I can tell you where anti-capitalistic thinking ends up and its not with everyone having more control over what propaganda they are bombarded with--just fewer sources.

[Nadya]

Which is where it becomes "inherently immoral".

We have the means to make advertisers shut up without actually silencing them. They're free to advertise to other people still.