6 ms·

Then the solution could be just like the solution to tobacco addiction: tax social media companies HARD, tax all advertising on social media 10x, 20x, or ban ad

Then the solution could be just like the solution to tobacco addiction: tax social media companies HARD, tax all advertising on social media 10x, 20x, or ban advertising on/for social media outright, ban advertising of kids products, ban showing use of social media in movies not rated 18, ... the problem will vanish just like cigarettes. But no, that's not what governments are doing. They want control and surveillance.

matheusmoreira 2mo ago
Taxing or banning advertising alone would fix literally everything that is wrong with the web.
- jryle70 2mo ago
  Do you know what happen when advertising is banned? It would go underground -- product placement, contest, merchandises, and so on. Advertising existed as soon as commerce became a thing, probably thousand years ago. It can't be banned. I wouldn't vote for that. Regulation, on the other hand, is fine. How? I don't know.
  - lostmsu 2mo ago
    > It can't be banned Sure it can. I don't see how being old makes it immune.
    - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
      It'd be tough to phrase it right. Imagine that The Ones Who Ban Things decide to write something interpretable as essentially "nobody is allowed to inform others about things". The process of distilling any ad banning law into applicable testing of that law would be pretty scary to me
      - kilburn 2mo ago
        Other legistlation plays a similar game: - Slandering laws set a limit for what you can say about others - Copyright laws set a limit on what you can share with others under which circumstances Both those things seem similarly complicated to implement and yet we have them.
  - matheusmoreira 2mo ago
    > It can't be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
  - account42 2mo ago
    You're saying that as if we don't already have all these.
- akoboldfrying 2mo ago
  Taxing may be a good way to restore balance. Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc. -- basically everything we've become accustomed to having for free will want a monthly subscription.
  - account42 2mo ago
    > Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc. Good.
- SecretDreams 1mo ago
  It would definitely help and I'd support it. I would much rather pay a fixed cost to use the internet and remove all the poisonous crap we're stuck dealing with to "keep the internet free".
frm88 2mo ago
This is the most sensible solution to this problem I have read on HN in the 2 years I've been here. Think of the positive effects taxation would have: no whack-a-mole for every loophole the industry will find. No single fines after costly court battles that are basically pocket change for Zuckerberg et al. Adherence to polluter-pays-priciple. Make it so that if they stop advertising, the tax expires. Use the tax money for better infrastructue. Make the tax progressive - the more ads, the higher the tax. Added benefit: even adults will be less exposed to addictive material. What would be the cons of this?

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

Taxing or banning advertising alone would fix literally everything that is wrong with the web.

jryle70 2mo ago
Do you know what happen when advertising is banned? It would go underground -- product placement, contest, merchandises, and so on. Advertising existed as soon as commerce became a thing, probably thousand years ago. It can't be banned. I wouldn't vote for that. Regulation, on the other hand, is fine. How? I don't know.
- lostmsu 2mo ago
  > It can't be banned Sure it can. I don't see how being old makes it immune.
  - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
    It'd be tough to phrase it right. Imagine that The Ones Who Ban Things decide to write something interpretable as essentially "nobody is allowed to inform others about things". The process of distilling any ad banning law into applicable testing of that law would be pretty scary to me
    - kilburn 2mo ago
      Other legistlation plays a similar game: - Slandering laws set a limit for what you can say about others - Copyright laws set a limit on what you can share with others under which circumstances Both those things seem similarly complicated to implement and yet we have them.
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  > It can't be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
- account42 2mo ago
  You're saying that as if we don't already have all these.
akoboldfrying 2mo ago
Taxing may be a good way to restore balance. Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc. -- basically everything we've become accustomed to having for free will want a monthly subscription.
- account42 2mo ago
  > Banning means goodbye online news, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Translate, ad-supported games, etc. Good.
SecretDreams 1mo ago
It would definitely help and I'd support it. I would much rather pay a fixed cost to use the internet and remove all the poisonous crap we're stuck dealing with to "keep the internet free".

frm88 2mo ago

This is the most sensible solution to this problem I have read on HN in the 2 years I've been here. Think of the positive effects taxation would have: no whack-a-mole for every loophole the industry will find. No single fines after costly court battles that are basically pocket change for Zuckerberg et al. Adherence to polluter-pays-priciple. Make it so that if they stop advertising, the tax expires. Use the tax money for better infrastructue. Make the tax progressive - the more ads, the higher the tax. Added benefit: even adults will be less exposed to addictive material. What would be the cons of this?