upvote
The problem isn't advertising, it's data harvesting and sale. Ads used to rent space on websites - totally reasonable. The whole industry around the purchase and sale of user data is what needs to be banned.
reply
Consequences are deeper than the immediate cause. Advertising is at the heart that gives a lot of value to data harvesting and similar scams.

Data harvesting gains most of its value because they sell some or all data to businesses which wish to leverage that data in advertising. If they cant advertise they wont need most of the data, which should at the least reduce the problem significantly...

reply
Advertising and paid promotion in any form has never been ok. It has always been a cancer on society. That is what happens when you ignore a mild symptom until it metastasizes into something horrible. We need to ban it completely.
reply
Much as i hate being advertised to, i do like the existence of trade, and of new products. In the old days, you would take your products to market once a week on a cart, and the market would pass by your stall. That isn't how it works any more.

Generally, how can society discover new products and services?

I would be open to having some kind of directory that i could browse at my own convenience, but that's ultimately going to devolve to paid placement.

reply
>Generally, how can society discover new products and services?

I'm surprised you can't imagine a society where the consumer would be the one recommending products and not the producer. Any entrepreneur can find one first consumer to test their new product. And that first consumer have access to a great communication network to recommend that products to their social network — it's called "the Internet". Social networks are a great platform for people to share interesting things to their friends, family, colleagues and also to people they don't actually know ("the Internet" can connect you to strangers). Such networks cost little to operate when the content is created by users, instead of producers and their intermediaries (people favors short, insightful written text instead of catchy commercial once detoxed).

Being born in the 1990s, I did experience that "Internet", when advertising networks didn't exist and when people intentionally interacted to make connections and actively look for information. They were happy to tell about things they discovered, with little to expect in return ("influencer", aka mercenary, wasn't a job yet).

reply
You can never get rid of advertising entirely. Ultimately people want to learn about new products and services and new companies that couldn't ever advertise anywhere would die off. It makes sense to support limitations on how and where ads are used though. Banning surveillance capitalism would solve a lot of the problems we have and would mean that a website about cars can still show ads about things people who go to car websites would typically be interested in and that's pretty much the only level of targeting we need.
reply
> Ultimately people want to learn about new products and services and new companies that couldn't ever advertise anywhere would die off.

I want to learn about products that are useful to me, but not through ads. As it turns out, it is incredibly difficult to learn about new products that are useful, as those do not tend to show up in ads at all and even seeking them out is very difficult.

It's weird how no one has come together to make a website specifically designed around users finding product categories that will make their life better. For example, I didn't learn about height adjustable desks from an ad. Nor did I learn about balance boards from an ad. Or trackballs. Or essentially every other product that made my life better once I realized that product category exists.

reply
> You can never get rid of advertising entirely.

What a myopic view. Also, the world is very much filled with shades of gray. I’m certain this dichotomy is indeed a false one.

reply
> Ultimately people want to learn about new products and services

Yes, and those people are free to visit equivalent of mail order catalog or go to the store or subscribe to consumer goods quality testing journal or to any of the enthusiast magazines about electronics or gardening or whatever where they perform independent testing and benchmarking or look up a video comparing ceiling fans across a century when they feel hot in the summer.

So yes, we should absolutely ban third party advertisements. People will still be able to discover good products.

reply
> Ultimately people want to learn about new products and services

Maybe I'm just not a typical person, but I have never woken up in the morning and said to myself, "You know, I would just love for a corporation to help me learn about their new products and services today." Never. Not even once. When I want to learn about something, I will actively seek information out about it, and I'm not going to look to advertisements for impartial information. The purpose of advertising is never to inform. It's to bombard and saturate.

reply
You are 100% typical in this. Advertising is the opposite of informing.
reply
Nobody claims one can get rid of it entirely. Nothing in this world is black and white, there are always shades of gray.

We also cant get rid of cancer, it doesnt mean we shoudl close down all hospitals.

reply
That's one perspective. Other are in different perspectives, like "anything that present something else than the very topic looked for is pure propaganda."

The spectre of possible interpretations is wide.

Some see only problems everywhere whatever the benefits might be, some see only new opportunities no matter the tragic outcomes, some see various blend of this and that.

reply
Theres only one problem most what people call opportunities are not actually positive life experiences.
reply
Fingerprinting is still needing for preventing fraud and platform abuse like spam.
reply
How do you tell the difference between a regular human trying to not have a weird creepy perma-dossier collected on them... versus a bot set up to always look like a new visitor?

The only winning move is not to play--er, to somehow not to have this kind of game in the first place.

reply
You don't, you simply make both spend a few billion cpu cycles for it. The human will tolerate the one-time cost. The bot's owner won't because it's not scalable.
reply
It doesn't actually work for that
reply
I worked in fraud prevention for years and device fingerprinting didn't stop fraud, but it reduced it by upping the up the cost. It is not hard to circumvent fingerprinting, but it still takes a non-zero amount of effort on behalf of the fraudster. Device fingerprints helped us identify and block or prevent a lot of low effort fraud and abuse on various platforms.
reply
If it didn't, why do you think every captcha solution uses it? It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be useful.
reply
How would you enforce that? Who can be trusted with the ability to classify things as advertising and in so doing silence their critics?

The solution is explicit trust. Not fingerprints for users, but digital signatures for content. If it's not signed by somebody the user trusts, don't render it.

The user is the only one who can be approach that task without a conflict of interest. If somebody wants the user to run code that phones home about user behavior, make them gain the user's trust.

reply
Many countries ban cigarette advertising. Not saying its perfect but has helped reduce smoking.
reply
That works if your ads have a physical location in space, like a billboard or a radio station, so that you have a place to go when you decide it's time to shut them down. You can't even get a stable URL for a web ad. Where are the cops gonna go? How many different "not my problem try this guy" hops are they gonna have to traverse before they find somebody who actually did the bad thing, how many different countries will they have to visit while they do so?

It only works if you re-architect the web into something that's even more censorship friendly than it currently is. I hate ads too, but the medicine seems worse than the disease in this case.

reply
This is silly, you are dismissing a solution which improves a problem in a positive way.

Hospitals are not perfect, people die, with your l;ogic we should close down them all.

Doing nothing and keeping advertising keeps a negative situation alive.

reply