I agree with some of the premises—adverts are often harmful, and can degrade the common intelligibility of groups. I think you go too quickly to conclusions like
Governments have decided adverts are passive providers of information and thus their display is allowed virtually everywhere
My counter-model is that governments have decided that communication among citizens is something that should not be judged or interfered with except in dire cases. It’s not positive decision to allow it, it’s just not a decision to prevent it.
The most we can do is form sub-communities which reject the pervasive effect of adverts. Ultimately, as a collective problem, the solution is a political one.
I fully disagree with that. even if “form sub-communities” were a viable action that anyone knows how to intentionally do, it’s at best part of the solution. We can also individually reduce consumption of ad-laden content streams, and get better at noticing and counteracting the interference of ads on our beliefs and communication.
Thanks for the comments—you’re right on the first point, I didn’t want to go into too much detail on the regulation of adverts because it raises many political and philosophical issues.
The freedom of advertising is almost certainly a facet of the liberal state. Certain counter-examples stick out, such as limits on tobacco advertising, fast food advertising, and advertising aimed at children. The former two seem premised, at least in the UK, on a notion the wider public is burdened by the consumption of these products, and possibly on the basis we can all agree on health as an unqualified good. The latter is an instance of the advert target being regarded as too susceptible to manipulation. Whether these are plausible or sustainable exceptions is a wider question.
On the second point, my point was a little opaque. Even if we individually reduce consumption of adverts, and notice how they affect our beliefs, that doesn’t change the fact we must interact with others who consume adverts unquestioningly. Further, these interactions will involve the use of shared concepts, which can be altered and undermined regardless of the vigilance of specific individuals. So, in terms of action we could attempt to inform others of the harms of advertising and convince them to be more critical; likewise, we could associate with others who share our view on advertising and work together in this educational project. Within these groups, we would also be able to communicate and spend time together without as much influence from the effects of adverts.
The emphasis should probably have been on the second part of the sentence—that this is a collective issue so will require some form of collective action if we wish to change the broader cultural landscape.
This is a general argument, and there’s nothing specific to advertising about the questions of how to deal with not-me, who have different pathologies and irrationalities than I do. Advertising is the least of our worries in the modern world of deeply interdependent individuals and groups.
I agree but I am not convinced ThomasMore attempted to use not wanting to go into detail as an excuse for making false claims: my reading is that ThomasMore believes the claim he made, but agrees with Dagon that to convince others he would need to say more than he did.
(I am not claiming that TM’s claim is in fact true, which it may or may not be; only that TM believes it, which means that he can fully agree with you that “not wanting to go into detail is no good reason to make claims that are false” while still making that claim.)
I agree with some of the premises—adverts are often harmful, and can degrade the common intelligibility of groups. I think you go too quickly to conclusions like
My counter-model is that governments have decided that communication among citizens is something that should not be judged or interfered with except in dire cases. It’s not positive decision to allow it, it’s just not a decision to prevent it.
I fully disagree with that. even if “form sub-communities” were a viable action that anyone knows how to intentionally do, it’s at best part of the solution. We can also individually reduce consumption of ad-laden content streams, and get better at noticing and counteracting the interference of ads on our beliefs and communication.
Thanks for the comments—you’re right on the first point, I didn’t want to go into too much detail on the regulation of adverts because it raises many political and philosophical issues.
The freedom of advertising is almost certainly a facet of the liberal state. Certain counter-examples stick out, such as limits on tobacco advertising, fast food advertising, and advertising aimed at children. The former two seem premised, at least in the UK, on a notion the wider public is burdened by the consumption of these products, and possibly on the basis we can all agree on health as an unqualified good. The latter is an instance of the advert target being regarded as too susceptible to manipulation. Whether these are plausible or sustainable exceptions is a wider question.
On the second point, my point was a little opaque. Even if we individually reduce consumption of adverts, and notice how they affect our beliefs, that doesn’t change the fact we must interact with others who consume adverts unquestioningly. Further, these interactions will involve the use of shared concepts, which can be altered and undermined regardless of the vigilance of specific individuals. So, in terms of action we could attempt to inform others of the harms of advertising and convince them to be more critical; likewise, we could associate with others who share our view on advertising and work together in this educational project. Within these groups, we would also be able to communicate and spend time together without as much influence from the effects of adverts.
The emphasis should probably have been on the second part of the sentence—that this is a collective issue so will require some form of collective action if we wish to change the broader cultural landscape.
This is a general argument, and there’s nothing specific to advertising about the questions of how to deal with not-me, who have different pathologies and irrationalities than I do. Advertising is the least of our worries in the modern world of deeply interdependent individuals and groups.
Not wanting to go into detail is no good reason to make claims that are false.
I agree but I am not convinced ThomasMore attempted to use not wanting to go into detail as an excuse for making false claims: my reading is that ThomasMore believes the claim he made, but agrees with Dagon that to convince others he would need to say more than he did.
(I am not claiming that TM’s claim is in fact true, which it may or may not be; only that TM believes it, which means that he can fully agree with you that “not wanting to go into detail is no good reason to make claims that are false” while still making that claim.)