undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjk16611mo ago0 comments

The problem is the harder you try to imagine it, the less it looks like a better world.

Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy. Getting rid of a billboard for something I am never going to buy sounds great, but it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising. Even if there were some type of advertising that provided no benefit to any part of society, the restriction on the freedom to communicate those advertisements is something that harms all of us.

Sometimes the part of building a better world that takes the most effort is recognizing where we already have.

0 comments

polygamous_bat11mo ago

> Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy

I would argue that paid advertisement is a force distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able to buy you that power?

jjk166OP11mo ago

I mean most town squares have no restriction on using a megaphone, and yet town squares have not been drowned out and rendered useless by megaphones. Even if that did happen, it would be a very poor analogue to generic advertising which can not drown out conversation. At best it would be an argument against megaphones over a certain volume, ie certain methods of communication might be reasonable to restrict, but restricting the ideas that can be expressed by megaphone is indefensible.

chii11mo ago

> Why should money be able to buy you that power?

why shouldn't it?

If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.

polygamous_bat11mo ago

> If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.

Sometimes (often?) people with a lot of money may not believe in speech but in suppressing speech. However, money should not allow for suppressing speech, for example by buying a giant megaphone and speaking over people.

By your logic paying people $500 to heckle at your political opponents rally is fine. It may be legally okay, but it is a moral hazard, and for a better society we should try to better distinguish between “free” speech and “bought and paid for” speech.

onemoresoop11mo ago

If they believe their message is important they should do grassroots, talk to people and convince people to talk to other people. Trust me, if the message is good people volunteer their time.

The reality is that more often than not these messages are self serving and profit driven, many times borderline fraudulous in claims or questionable at best

1 more reply

CJefferson11mo ago

Because that means something Elon Musk thinks is 0.00001% important outbids 99.99999% of peoples opinion on anything.

chii11mo ago

> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising

and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who is drawing a revenue from it.

People who proclaim that doing XYZ to make the world better, is not really considering the entirety of the world - just their corner. To claim that it would make the world better, they must show evidence that it doesn't hurt somebody else (who just happens to be in a different tribe to the proposer).

barrell11mo ago

But it’s kind of great for the upshot who can’t afford the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can.

And it’s kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds, thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who don’t have some eye soar blocking their view.

Your argument is basically that there are some people who benefit from advertising—I promise you anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.

chii11mo ago

> anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.

and yet, the apparent disregard for the interests of those currently benefiting from advertising is dismissed as mere trifles, not worthy of compensation.

Policy suggestions should not be so one sided. I would always use the veil of ignorance, and ensure that any policy suggestion go through this retorical device.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

polygamous_bat11mo ago

> Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy

jjk166OP11mo ago

chii11mo ago

> Why should money be able to buy you that power?

why shouldn't it?

If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.

polygamous_bat11mo ago

> If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.

onemoresoop11mo ago

If they believe their message is important they should do grassroots, talk to people and convince people to talk to other people. Trust me, if the message is good people volunteer their time.

The reality is that more often than not these messages are self serving and profit driven, many times borderline fraudulous in claims or questionable at best

1 more reply

CJefferson11mo ago

Because that means something Elon Musk thinks is 0.00001% important outbids 99.99999% of peoples opinion on anything.

chii11mo ago

> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising

and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who is drawing a revenue from it.

barrell11mo ago

But it’s kind of great for the upshot who can’t afford the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can.

And it’s kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds, thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who don’t have some eye soar blocking their view.

Your argument is basically that there are some people who benefit from advertising—I promise you anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.

chii11mo ago

> anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.

and yet, the apparent disregard for the interests of those currently benefiting from advertising is dismissed as mere trifles, not worthy of compensation.

Policy suggestions should not be so one sided. I would always use the veil of ignorance, and ensure that any policy suggestion go through this retorical device.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse