Adverts defile Free Market values

[Zero_Sum]

Prove to me in history where a free market has existed and then in detail define what a free market is. We can go from there.

If I tried, you'd call them all no true Scotsman - that's the point of the fallacy.

Your response to Meno_ was actually the point of the thread - indeed nothing in this world is entirely free, as there is necessarily another side to the same coin wherever freedom can be identified.
This is absolutely clear as soon as you exemplify one person being completely free in one way, since another person is logically not free to do differently to what that person wants to do out of their own freedom.

This is probably your whole point as well, so I don't want to come across as hostile or averse to your point - in fact I want to agree with it, just in the most correct terms that I can.

But more than merely a general point about freedom, I simply meant to apply it specifically to the market model that is characteristically central to Western economics for the purposes of this thread. I explain how the facade necessarily becomes increasingly untenable the more we advance into the future, and specifically why it will do so.

Ideally I intended to open up discussion concerning the future of the "Free" market model, as foundationally unfree as you rightly identified it to be.

My point still stands, there has never been a free market and free market economics is a fantasy or a kind of fairy tale people lull themselves with into believing even though it fundamentally has nothing to do with reality.

There is no reforming the current social, political, and economic system where this will become abundantly clear within two years or less.

What comes next is western civilization's violent and brutal downfall or collapse. It will be the most spectacular sight to behold once civil war, rioting, martial law, world war, and violent chaos engulfs the entire west. [And the entire world.]

We cynics and pessimists tried to warn the world but nobody would listen to us calling us crazy from the start. Well, now everybody gets to witness what we were talking about in horrific real time. Enjoy!

[ralfy]

you need government regulation because without it excessive liberal freedoms will be abused and you'll end up shooting your eye out, ralfy. happens every time.

Definitely, and I never argued otherwise.

[ralfy]

So you can still have a "free market" when coercion is maximally privatised?
If so, "free market" would seem a misleading term just because the unfreedom was decentralised.

I'm guessing the implication is that with minimal government regulation, we reach minimal coercion by definition?
This would, of course, place a great deal of faith in Classical Liberal economic theory - that tending towards perfection competition minimises coercion through monopoly and oligopoly etc.

I've explained that through the "Competitive Exclusion Principle" we know that perfect competition is not stable unless poverty is so great as to negate the advantage gained by success. The point is for the Free Market to get us out of this state of poverty so that we no longer need it, which means that with the physical restrictions of poverty no longer around to actually enable perfect competition to keep the Free Market in line, other means are needed. I'm not certain that only government regulation can satisfy that requirement, but it is certainly one way to do so if done properly. Anything that overrides the authority of decentralised markets could potentially fulfill this requirement, though in practice with too minimal government regulation or with government working too in line with markets and not to keep them in line, government will not suffice in this regard.

So what then? This is the only relevant economic question of our age. We know the market solution is limited and we know pre-Information-Age totalitarian governments with can't keep up with populations beyond a fairly small size.

Until that is answered, we are left with hack solutions such as enforced advertising just to maintain the illusion of voluntary trade when the Information Age makes so much so freely available. The more we progress into this age, the less viable these hack solutions become.

Coercion is never minimized.

Enforced advertising is not meant to be a solution or meant to create an illusion of voluntary trade.

[Silhouette]

Coercion is never minimized.

So you can't coerce someone less, or coerce them less often?

Are you thinking this through?

Do you mean coercion is inevitable to some kind of balanced constant across any given society as an average?
This would make the "free market" no different from somewhere like North Korea, which doesn't seem right to me.

I'm trying to make sense of this seemingly bizarre blanket statement, especially in the absence of any explanation by you.

Enforced advertising is not meant to be a solution or meant to create an illusion of voluntary trade.

Of course it is.

It's a solution to keep money circulating even though anything digital can be easily distributed for free. The only "need" for money is capitalist.

Without consumers paying money for digital things they could get for free, and trying to enforce restrictions that can be bypassed being futile, selling exposure to advertising companies seems to be the only way to get money to circulate through these ever-growing markets. It's a last resort, the model wasn't intentionally constructed to bring about voluntary trade or an illusion of it, it's to maintain voluntary trade, but only an illusion of it since it's enforced.

[Zero_Sum]

Society needs coercion because people are largely selfish, lazy, and care only about themselves which is why volunteering societies never work. The trick is finding the right kind of stable management to run things but of course it only takes a few generations for any system to become corrupt, decadent, or self destructive which is why social revolutions whatever political guise they take is never ending all throughout human history because human beings have an enormous inherent character flaw concerning human nature. Human nature is definitely not inherently good nor do I believe most people are inherently good. Some people are good, honorable, and virtuous but a majority of human beings are simply just dumb destructive vindictive animals that need to be herded for their own good.

[ralfy]

So you can't coerce someone less, or coerce them less often?

Yes, you're free to do either.

Are you thinking this through?

Do you mean coercion is inevitable to some kind of balanced constant across any given society as an average?
This would make the "free market" no different from somewhere like North Korea, which doesn't seem right to me.

What is that "balanced constant" when it comes to advertising?

I'm trying to make sense of this seemingly bizarre blanket statement, especially in the absence of any explanation by you.

The "bizarre blanket statement" is some sort of "balanced constant" which I'd like to see you quantify.

Enforced advertising is not meant to be a solution or meant to create an illusion of voluntary trade.

Of course it is.

No, it's not. Even the phrase "[e]nforced advertising" makes no sense. Are you claiming that companies are forced to advertise? And my whom? Or are you referring to consumers who are forced to view advertisements? And who is forcing them to do that?

And what does that even have to do with "voluntary trade"? The phrase refers to allowing people to trade voluntarily?

It's a solution to keep money circulating even though anything digital can be easily distributed for free. The only "need" for money is capitalist.

Advertising is not the only "solution." There's also pricing, availability of credit, planned obsolescence, and more.

Your next statement is incoherent. Did you mean that money needs "[a] capitalist," or capitalists in general? Perhaps you mean capitalists need money?

Without consumers paying money for digital things they could get for free, and trying to enforce restrictions that can be bypassed being futile, selling exposure to advertising companies seems to be the only way to get money to circulate through these ever-growing markets. It's a last resort, the model wasn't intentionally constructed to bring about voluntary trade or an illusion of it, it's to maintain voluntary trade, but only an illusion of it since it's enforced.

Why are you limiting the scope of the discussion to "digital things"? Are you aware that non-"digital things" are needed to use them, and that many needs are "non-digital"?

I don't understand the rest of the paragraph. Are you implying that this thread, contrary to the contents of the OP, is only about "digital things"?

[Silhouette]

So you can't coerce someone less, or coerce them less often?

Yes, you're free to do either.

"Free to coerce" with whatever degree and frequency!
Let's break this gem down into the terms of positive liberty (freedom to) and negative liberty (freedom from):
Being "free" to coerce sounds like positive liberty, yet at the cost of the negative liberty of those coerced, who are not free from your coercion.
This as a society-wide "freedom" means that no one person is free from another's freedom to coerce them - the universal positive liberty is mirrored and literally cancelled out by universal negative liberty.
With the freedom and coercion cancelling each other out, "Free to coerce" is absolutely a nothing-statement.

Are you thinking this through?

What is that "balanced constant" when it comes to advertising?

The "bizarre blanket statement" is some sort of "balanced constant" which I'd like to see you quantify.

You don't seem to understand - I am not asserting the existence of any "balanced constant" as part of my argument, I am suggesting such a thing in an attempt to make your bizarre blanket statement of "Coercion is never minimized" make sense, when coercion clearly can be minimised with just a second's thought required to think why.

So either a "balanced constant" applies to your bizarre blanket statement about coercion never being minimised, in which case the burden of proof rests on you to justify it by quantifying such a constant, or it doesn't apply to your bizarre blanket statement any more than it applies to my argument, and so my attempt to help you out is irrelevant to the discussion and can be thrown out - not for my lack of trying to help you though.

No, it's not. Even the phrase "[e]nforced advertising" makes no sense. Are you claiming that companies are forced to advertise? And my whom? Or are you referring to consumers who are forced to view advertisements? And who is forcing them to do that?

Enforced advertising makes perfect sense when considering the position of those upon whom it is enforced. They aren't forced to keep their eyes and ears open during the advert(s), but that which they're freely choosing to do is being denied to them throughout the duration of any adverts. Unless you actively choose to be affronted by adverts, having your free choice denied to you is involuntary - it is enforced upon you against your will, even if you shut down your senses or do something else in the meantime. This is particularly jarring if the content of any advert disrupts the experience of what you would otherwise be freely experiencing.

It was never meant to apply to imply companies are forced to advertise by anyone - although now you bring such a thing up, there is a certain market requirement to advertise contingent on the desire of companies to stay competitive. Nobody is forcing companies to stay competitive, but if capitalists want to reap the benefit of being a capitalist, and not resort to selling their labour for much less reward, they are forced to advertise to the extent that they want to succeed. If they don't, their market share will be marginal and relatively insignificant, if they stay in business at all - it's a sure way to make any success minimal in the face of competition choosing to advertise. Like I said: "if [adverts] did not work then it would not be a monumentally huge industry" like it is.

And what does that even have to do with "voluntary trade"? The phrase refers to allowing people to trade voluntarily?

I already answered this after you previously said "A free market does not refer to the absence of coercion such as advertising but minimal government regulation."
To break it down to the same terms as I used earlier in this post, you're saying voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty.
There's something amiss here when negative liberty is compromised in the name of positive liberty.
Conceivably it's perfectly possible for a free market to not impose on negative liberties whatsoever, if it were entirely optional without the significant costs of not participating. As it is, if you free yourself from the free market, you restrict yourself to self-sufficiency, and even then only if there's any land that's not "claimed" within the free market, freely accessible to you without needing the free market, which could support a self-sufficient lifestyle, and is guaranteed to remain this way for as long as you want. The larger the reach of the free market, the less free you are to not participate. And even if you do choose to participate, you are subject to its effects, whether economic, or socio-cultural, including adverts being placed with the explicit intention of being as unavoidably conspicuous as companies can get away with. All of these are violations of negative liberty, which is only possible to undo by enforcing less positive liberty.

It's a solution to keep money circulating even though anything digital can be easily distributed for free. The only "need" for money is capitalist.

Advertising is not the only "solution." There's also pricing, availability of credit, planned obsolescence, and more.

Your next statement is incoherent. Did you mean that money needs "[a] capitalist," or capitalists in general? Perhaps you mean capitalists need money?

Pricing and credit both fall squarely into the category of forcing money through platforms that easily distribute content freely. The easier it is to trade things, the less demand there is for labour and business to help out + the more *any* degree of pricing or credit becomes irrelevant - because it's more able to be maximally free. Planned obsolescence is just another measure to force money into anything that could be much more free if the means to use it weren't designed to periodically fail - and it would have to be extreme to make up for the revenue generated by forcing money into otherwise freely usable platforms through either pricing and credit or advertising.

The maximum freedom here is to let freely distributable commodities be free to distribute as and when anyone wants, as well as not resorting to enforcing adverts, pricing, credit, planned obsolescence and more onto people.
The problem is that this lack of "need" for money is incompatible with Capitalism, which is why my statement about it is perfectly coherent.
I don't mean either "money needs capitalists" or "capitalists need money": capitalists do need money in a capitalist economy just like anyone else, and money doesn't need only capitalists in particular as many economic models need or at least use money. Capitalism is just one model that needs money, and therefore realms where money is not needed defy Capitalism. In these cases Capitalism does more to get in the way of freedom than to enable it.

Without consumers paying money for digital things they could get for free, and trying to enforce restrictions that can be bypassed being futile, selling exposure to advertising companies seems to be the only way to get money to circulate through these ever-growing markets. It's a last resort, the model wasn't intentionally constructed to bring about voluntary trade or an illusion of it, it's to maintain voluntary trade, but only an illusion of it since it's enforced.

Why are you limiting the scope of the discussion to "digital things"? Are you aware that non-"digital things" are needed to use them, and that many needs are "non-digital"?

I don't understand the rest of the paragraph. Are you implying that this thread, contrary to the contents of the OP, is only about "digital things"?

The discussion isn't limited to digital things, my argument is that the more freely a platform can be used, the less need for money (whether pricing, advertising or anything else) and as such: the more free the platform, the more enforcement of these things is a violation of freedom in any market. Digital things are just a great example of otherwise freely distributable content. And yes, obviously I am aware that they're not entirely freely distributable contingent upon the material element of hardware - but given hardware, and to an extent the software programming to software, the use of the results could be entirely free - and yet things like adverts are forced into this possible freedom, making it unfree.

In the OP I offer "Think intellectual property or anything publishable on the internet", which is perfectly compatible with my mention of "digital things" - there is nothing contrary to the contents of the OP here.

But more importantly, even though it's most plainly obvious that adverts defy free market values in the digital realm et al. and that these markets are only eclipsing others more and more as technology advances, even in realms where things are still constrained by the physical (e.g. food, shelter etc.) any advertisement involved with these things is still an imposition - and fully intended to get your attention as well. If information is needed on products and services available, it would be perfectly possible to make such information freely accessible on a perfectly optional basis without any imposition whatsoever. It's perfectly possible to arrange things such that you can go an entire lifetime without ever once seeing an advert, and staying as up to date as you want on entirely impartial and factual information about what you might want all the while.

In short, the scope is in no way limited to digital things, the discussion is universally relevant, only more obviously so with digital things as just one example, in accordance with the general trend towards the potential free distribution of more and more things.

[ralfy]

"Free to coerce" with whatever degree and frequency!
Let's break this gem down into the terms of positive liberty (freedom to) and negative liberty (freedom from):
Being "free" to coerce sounds like positive liberty, yet at the cost of the negative liberty of those coerced, who are not free from your coercion.
This as a society-wide "freedom" means that no one person is free from another's freedom to coerce them - the universal positive liberty is mirrored and literally cancelled out by universal negative liberty.
With the freedom and coercion cancelling each other out, "Free to coerce" is absolutely a nothing-statement.

Are you thinking this through?

This has nothing to do with your topic concerning advertisements defiling free market values. The first refers to marketing products and services. The second refers to less government regulation.

Are you thinking this through?

You don't seem to understand - I am not asserting the existence of any "balanced constant" as part of my argument, I am suggesting such a thing in an attempt to make your bizarre blanket statement of "Coercion is never minimized" make sense, when coercion clearly can be minimised with just a second's thought required to think why.

Understand what? You can't even define the terms that you use! You don't even know what advertising and free markets mean.

Next time, think things through before creating a thread. That way, you don't come up with such bizarre arguments like advertisements "defiling" free market values and similar nonsense, and then insist that others don't understand you!

So either a "balanced constant" applies to your bizarre blanket statement about coercion never being minimised, in which case the burden of proof rests on you to justify it by quantifying such a constant, or it doesn't apply to your bizarre blanket statement any more than it applies to my argument, and so my attempt to help you out is irrelevant to the discussion and can be thrown out - not for my lack of trying to help you though.

The "bizarre blanket statement about coercion" in this thread is seen in the thread title.

Enforced advertising makes perfect sense when considering the position of those upon whom it is enforced. They aren't forced to keep their eyes and ears open during the advert(s), but that which they're freely choosing to do is being denied to them throughout the duration of any adverts. Unless you actively choose to be affronted by adverts, having your free choice denied to you is involuntary - it is enforced upon you against your will, even if you shut down your senses or do something else in the meantime. This is particularly jarring if the content of any advert disrupts the experience of what you would otherwise be freely experiencing.

"Enforced advertising" refers to businesses being forced to advertise. You're talking about people being forced to view advertisements. Use the correct terms!

People are forced to keep their eyes and ears open during advertisements because of the duration? That has nothing to do with "free market values," where businesses are free to do as they please.

And if you insist on regulations to decrease the duration, then that actually goes AGAINST free market values.

It was never meant to apply to imply companies are forced to advertise by anyone - although now you bring such a thing up, there is a certain market requirement to advertise contingent on the desire of companies to stay competitive. Nobody is forcing companies to stay competitive, but if capitalists want to reap the benefit of being a capitalist, and not resort to selling their labour for much less reward, they are forced to advertise to the extent that they want to succeed. If they don't, their market share will be marginal and relatively insignificant, if they stay in business at all - it's a sure way to make any success minimal in the face of competition choosing to advertise. Like I said: "if [adverts] did not work then it would not be a monumentally huge industry" like it is.

What does this have to do with your topic? You were referring to people being forced to view advertisements because the latter are too long. Now, you're referring to companies forced to advertised.

Can't you stick to a topic and discuss it first before moving on to another, or are you now claiming that because of competition, businesses have to advertise, and with that advertisements tend to be longer? If so, how does that prove your argument about free markets? Aren't the latter about competition and using tools like advertising?

I already answered this after you previously said "A free market does not refer to the absence of coercion such as advertising but minimal government regulation."
To break it down to the same terms as I used earlier in this post, you're saying voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty.
There's something amiss here when negative liberty is compromised in the name of positive liberty.
Conceivably it's perfectly possible for a free market to not impose on negative liberties whatsoever, if it were entirely optional without the significant costs of not participating. As it is, if you free yourself from the free market, you restrict yourself to self-sufficiency, and even then only if there's any land that's not "claimed" within the free market, freely accessible to you without needing the free market, which could support a self-sufficient lifestyle, and is guaranteed to remain this way for as long as you want. The larger the reach of the free market, the less free you are to not participate. And even if you do choose to participate, you are subject to its effects, whether economic, or socio-cultural, including adverts being placed with the explicit intention of being as unavoidably conspicuous as companies can get away with. All of these are violations of negative liberty, which is only possible to undo by enforcing less positive liberty.

I never argued that voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty. In fact, I did not refer to voluntary (or involuntary) trade or positive (or negative) liberty, as these have nothing to do with the definition I gave above.

To recap, a free market is one where there is no government regulation. But since that's not likely, then the mainstream view refers to minimum government regulation. Thus, free market economies are mostly mixed ones, as government regulation involving fiat currencies, corporate by-laws and registration, contracts, are still needed by businesses.

Duration of advertising has nothing to do with that. Your thesis, as seen in the thread title, is meaningless.

What you probably meant is that advertising (and not advertising per se but the duration) defiles some sort of philosophy you have concerning liberty.

You should have come up with correct terms!

Pricing and credit both fall squarely into the category of forcing money through platforms that easily distribute content freely. The easier it is to trade things, the less demand there is for labour and business to help out + the more *any* degree of pricing or credit becomes irrelevant - because it's more able to be maximally free. Planned obsolescence is just another measure to force money into anything that could be much more free if the means to use it weren't designed to periodically fail - and it would have to be extreme to make up for the revenue generated by forcing money into otherwise freely usable platforms through either pricing and credit or advertising.

Not just "forcing money through platforms" but increasing sales, business expansion, and more. And credit comes in several forms.

You obviously have a very limited and unrealistic view of economics and how businesses operate.

The maximum freedom here is to let freely distributable commodities be free to distribute as and when anyone wants, as well as not resorting to enforcing adverts, pricing, credit, planned obsolescence and more onto people.
The problem is that this lack of "need" for money is incompatible with Capitalism, which is why my statement about it is perfectly coherent.
I don't mean either "money needs capitalists" or "capitalists need money": capitalists do need money in a capitalist economy just like anyone else, and money doesn't need only capitalists in particular as many economic models need or at least use money. Capitalism is just one model that needs money, and therefore realms where money is not needed defy Capitalism. In these cases Capitalism does more to get in the way of freedom than to enable it.

That point makes no sense at all, as the freedom to distribute involves advertising, etc. In short, what "defiles" free market isn't advertising but your insistence on curtailing it. All the while, you see things the other way round!

Your next point, about a "lack of 'need' for money," has nothing to do with your first point, as credit expansion involves a greater need for money.

Your third point makes no sense as well: what on earth does "money doesn't need only capitalists" even mean? And why are you referring to other models when your title thread refers to one?

The discussion isn't limited to digital things, my argument is that the more freely a platform can be used, the less need for money (whether pricing, advertising or anything else) and as such: the more free the platform, the more enforcement of these things is a violation of freedom in any market. Digital things are just a great example of otherwise freely distributable content. And yes, obviously I am aware that they're not entirely freely distributable contingent upon the material element of hardware - but given hardware, and to an extent the software programming to software, the use of the results could be entirely free - and yet things like adverts are forced into this possible freedom, making it unfree.

Yes, but you're referring to "digital things." "Non-digital things" may counter your points.

In the OP I offer "Think intellectual property or anything publishable on the internet", which is perfectly compatible with my mention of "digital things" - there is nothing contrary to the contents of the OP here.

In that case, your thread title should be about advertising duration of "digital things" defiling "liberties." That is completely different from the current title.

But more importantly, even though it's most plainly obvious that adverts defy free market values in the digital realm et al. and that these markets are only eclipsing others more and more as technology advances, even in realms where things are still constrained by the physical (e.g. food, shelter etc.) any advertisement involved with these things is still an imposition - and fully intended to get your attention as well. If information is needed on products and services available, it would be perfectly possible to make such information freely accessible on a perfectly optional basis without any imposition whatsoever. It's perfectly possible to arrange things such that you can go an entire lifetime without ever once seeing an advert, and staying as up to date as you want on entirely impartial and factual information about what you might want all the while.

In short, the scope is in no way limited to digital things, the discussion is universally relevant, only more obviously so with digital things as just one example, in accordance with the general trend towards the potential free distribution of more and more things.

No, they don't defy free market values. Free market values refer to less government regulation, which means allowing businesses to come up with advertising duration, among others, which they think will increase sales. From there, they can adjust if that doesn't work.

What you're calling for is regulation of advertising in terms of duration and anything else which you argue goes against whatever liberties you want to mention. THAT defies free market values because it involves government regulation.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with that as long as your proposal gets a majority vote.

[Silhouette]

This has nothing to do with your topic concerning advertisements defiling free market values. The first refers to marketing products and services. The second refers to less government regulation.

Are you thinking this through?

Oh jesus ... so now I can't correct your irrelevant comment without being criticised that my correction is not irrelevant to the topic.
Do you think it's clever to de-rail, so that when I address your de-railing you can accuse me of being complicit in de-railing?

But even then, my correction was actually perfectly relevant to the topic regardless.
You're going to insist that free market values are limited to issues of positive liberty such as "less government regulation", even if you never use nor intend to use the terminology of "positive liberty" - it's still what you're talking about. So of course you won't see my correction as relevant to a topic about free market values - because I'm talking about a more complete concept of freedom than only positive liberty.
I have no disagreement that with less regulation, you're more free to do what you want in the market place, and with more regulation you're less free to.
All I'm saying is that Negative Liberty is the other side of the same coin of "freedom", and adverts enforced on consumers mean consumers aren't free from adverts.

Therefore completing the picture of "freedom" in the market with negative as well as positive liberty, with a lack of negative liberty there is less "freedom" in the market, even with complete positive liberty with no government regulation (especially with no government regulation). So with a more complete concept of freedom in the market, adverts do indeed defile freedom in the market. You only want to consider half the picture of freedom when referring to free market values, I want to consider the whole picture. My point is that Free Market Values aren't really free if they only take into account half of the concept of freedom and don't take into account the other half that reveals a lack of freedom. Considering the other half (negative liberty), there's a lack of freedom.

You will want to agree to disagree I'm sure. I disagree to merely disagree as though it's just opinion, for the sake of objectively complete consistency rather than cherry-picked consistency.

Understand what? You can't even define the terms that you use! You don't even know what advertising and free markets mean.

Next time, think things through before creating a thread. That way, you don't come up with such bizarre arguments like advertisements "defiling" free market values and similar nonsense, and then insist that others don't understand you!

Surely you're not unable to see the obvious point I'm making?

I am throwing you a bone with a term that you could use to make sense of your otherwise non-sensical point. I'm not presuming to know the sense behind your non-sensical point, and to do your work for you to make the suggested term make sense of your point for you would be to presume.
I'm saying "here's a term you can use how you please, in case it helps" and you're complaining that I don't fully define it before offering it to you as though I could and should know the sense behind your nonsense. If you made sense, I wouldn't need to throw you a bone to help you make sense!

I know what advertising and free markets mean. You're insisting the latter is half of what would be consistent for the complete term of "free" in "free markets". I'm proposing the apparently radical suggestion that freedom means freedom in the complete sense of "not just positive but negative liberty" as well. Is that so radical of me to suggest using a complete definition of "free" when considering the term "free markets"?

The "bizarre blanket statement about coercion" in this thread is seen in the thread title.

It makes perfect sense if you consider the complete definition of freedom, and not just the cherry-picked one.

Your bizarre blanket statement that "coercion is never minimised" doesn't make sense with either your half-definition of freedom or my full one.

If you don't care to justify it, then that's fine, it's pretty plainly irrelevant and if we both accept that we can move on.

"Enforced advertising" refers to businesses being forced to advertise. You're talking about people being forced to view advertisements. Use the correct terms!

People are forced to keep their eyes and ears open during advertisements because of the duration? That has nothing to do with "free market values," where businesses are free to do as they please.

And if you insist on regulations to decrease the duration, then that actually goes AGAINST free market values.

Again here you're only cherry picking one half of the full concept of freedom and saying that's correct, and that using the complete definition of freedom is incorrect.

You're free to cherry pick all you like, but unfortunately I'm not going to agree with you if you do so.

Decreasing or eliminating advertising does indeed violate the positive liberty of businesses to advertise, you're absolutely right!
I'm not saying that no adverts doesn't defile free market values, I'm saying that adverts defile free market values. The clue is in the thread title.

What does this have to do with your topic? You were referring to people being forced to view advertisements because the latter are too long. Now, you're referring to companies forced to advertised.

Can't you stick to a topic and discuss it first before moving on to another, or are you now claiming that because of competition, businesses have to advertise, and with that advertisements tend to be longer? If so, how does that prove your argument about free markets? Aren't the latter about competition and using tools like advertising?

I'm saying that market pressures force businesses to enforce advertising (long or short) on people if they want to achieve significant success, or any success at all.
Everything you've said so far insists on sticking to only half of the concept of freedom when referring to free markets. Consider the whole concept and try again.

I never argued that voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty. In fact, I did not refer to voluntary (or involuntary) trade or positive (or negative) liberty, as these have nothing to do with the definition I gave above.

To recap, a free market is one where there is no government regulation. But since that's not likely, then the mainstream view refers to minimum government regulation. Thus, free market economies are mostly mixed ones, as government regulation involving fiat currencies, corporate by-laws and registration, contracts, are still needed by businesses.

Duration of advertising has nothing to do with that. Your thesis, as seen in the thread title, is meaningless.

What you probably meant is that advertising (and not advertising per se but the duration) defiles some sort of philosophy you have concerning liberty.

You should have come up with correct terms!

That's the whole problem - you're not referring to voluntary/involuntary trade or positive/negative liberty in your definition of free market.
You would have been correct to refer to positive liberty in reference to your conception of free markets, as lack of government regulation maximises positive liberty in the market and voluntary trade for companies.
But you would still be ignoring the other half of "free" in markets by ignoring negative liberty in markets, with whatever degree of government regulation.
Enforcing adverts in exchange for your money, that you wished to spend on something without adverts, is not a voluntary trade if you don't want adverts. You are not free to choose the product or service or lifestyle as a whole without adverts in so many cases. Even an effective ad-blocker doesn't block billboards and other such forms of advertising. Ignoring this half of the concept of freedom is a problem with your discussion of freedom in the marketplace. "Free" is thereby the wrong word for markets, whether mixed, with fiat currency, corportate by-laws and registration, contrascts or otherwise.

It's not a personal philosophy that only I have about liberty - positive and negative liberty have been staples of the concept "freedom" for decades by any capable philosopher as well as economist. I used the correct terms from the start, but you didn't think it through as I correctly identified, using only the cherry picked half that allows "Free Market values" to fit with your myopic conception of free markets.

Not just "forcing money through platforms" but increasing sales, business expansion, and more. And credit comes in several forms.

You obviously have a very limited and unrealistic view of economics and how businesses operate.

I worked for years in a finance department, studied economics modules at university level and have accountancy qualifications, but nice try. My points stand regardless of my knowledge and accomplishments though - I don't intend to appeal to my authority here.

Increasing "sales" is the issue, because a trade that costs no money isn't a net sale in the sense that no direct or indirect net income or expense results anywhere for anyone (even if you officially record it as a zero or discounted sale, or sunk cost, irrecoverable debt, write-off, suspense entry - whatever for the sake of balancing your accounts). Businesses at all are not necessary for the purposes of just passing free stuff around for free - so any expansion of businesses otherwise is therefore meaningless when no money need be involved, it's just people giving and taking content and commodities. Credit implies payment at a later date, and sharing stuff for free implies no payment at any date. Are you deliberately trying to miss my point?

That point makes no sense at all, as the freedom to distribute involves advertising, etc. In short, what "defiles" free market isn't advertising but your insistence on curtailing it. All the while, you see things the other way round!

What, so since "freedom to distribute involves advertisting", browsing the internet needs advertising or the connection won't physically work? Internet sites are there if you have the hardware. The software is just digital and internet connections exist even if nobody is paying money to anyone to "allow" their use. The hardware and everything else would exist and work completely fine without advertising involved at any stage. Any inclusion of adverts at any stage is purely circumstantial contingent upon the economic model we just so happen to currently use, and not intrinsitc to the physical operation of something like browsing the internet. There are many other obvious examples. As I said, curtailing advertising defiles positive liberty in the market, but this doesn't stop the allowance of advertising defiling negative liberty in the market. I can make another thread about curtailing advertising defiling free markets values if you like and it would be just as true as this thread about advertising defiling free market values.

The two sides to the same coin reveal an important and necessary point about the concept of freedom.

Your next point, about a "lack of 'need' for money," has nothing to do with your first point, as credit expansion involves a greater need for money.

Your third point makes no sense as well: what on earth does "money doesn't need only capitalists" even mean? And why are you referring to other models when your title thread refers to one?

Credit expansion or no, any inclusion of money is unnecessary to the physical functionality and sharing of e.g. sharing digital content/intellectual property - you can just "do it" freely.

"Money doesn't need only capitalists" was explained immediately after I said it if you had cared to read it: "in particular as many economic models need or at least use money".
In contrast to Capitalism needing money to function, money doesn't therefore need Capitalism - that would be commiting the "Affirming the consequent" logical fallacy, as money can be utilised in other economic models than Capitalism.
I was covering up the holes you left in your "False dilemma" fallacy attempted here: "Did you mean that money needs "[a] capitalist," or capitalists in general? Perhaps you mean capitalists need money?" I'm sorry that my being thorough made no sense to you.

Yes, but you're referring to "digital things." "Non-digital things" may counter your points.

In the OP I offer "Think intellectual property or anything publishable on the internet", which is perfectly compatible with my mention of "digital things" - there is nothing contrary to the contents of the OP here.

In that case, your thread title should be about advertising duration of "digital things" defiling "liberties." That is completely different from the current title.

I covered this:

"In short, the scope is in no way limited to digital things, the discussion is universally relevant, only more obviously so with digital things as just one example, in accordance with the general trend towards the potential free distribution of more and more things."

No, they don't defy free market values. Free market values refer to less government regulation, which means allowing businesses to come up with advertising duration, among others, which they think will increase sales. From there, they can adjust if that doesn't work.

What you're calling for is regulation of advertising in terms of duration and anything else which you argue goes against whatever liberties you want to mention. THAT defies free market values because it involves government regulation.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with that as long as your proposal gets a majority vote.

Again - the underlying hole in your argument is your half-conception of freedom. You will stand your ground though I'm sure, even in the face of my completed conception of freedom - in relation to markets or otherwise, it holds universally.
And again - I'm not saying curtailing advertising doesn't defile free market values when I say adverts defile free market values - this implication that you're attempting commits the "Affirming a disjunct" fallacy.

I'm sure the very idea of shortening advert duration, never mind merely eliminating adverts as I would support, would never get a majority vote even though adverts appear to be generally seen as a nuisance. Most people are conservative and/or easily manipulable by sophistry like "Free markets only refer to half the whole picture of freedom", and don't think it through. If they did and they realised everyone else did, a majority vote would be easy. As it is, the powers that be: capitalist businesses would put up a hell of a fight to stop the elimination of advertising as it amounts to an opportunity cost. I'm just speaking truth, I'm not expecting anyone to listen - it's clear you won't.

[ralfy]

Oh jesus ... so now I can't correct your irrelevant comment without being criticised that my correction is not irrelevant to the topic.
Do you think it's clever to de-rail, so that when I address your de-railing you can accuse me of being complicit in de-railing?

I'm not derailing anything. The problem is that you are using the wrong terms.

But even then, my correction was actually perfectly relevant to the topic regardless.
You're going to insist that free market values are limited to issues of positive liberty such as "less government regulation", even if you never use nor intend to use the terminology of "positive liberty" - it's still what you're talking about. So of course you won't see my correction as relevant to a topic about free market values - because I'm talking about a more complete concept of freedom than only positive liberty.

I didn't argue that free market values are limited to issues of positive liberty. I'm arguing that it has nothing to do with issues of positive liberty. That's because less government regulation does not necessarily lead to the latter, and free markets are driven by economic constraints.

I have no disagreement that with less regulation, you're more free to do what you want in the market place, and with more regulation you're less free to.

Yes, but free to do only certain things, as you're still constrained by factors ranging from the effects of competition to resource and energy availability. That's why the claim made in the thread title is complete nonsense.

Similar applies to the opposite view: with more regulation, you are constrained only for certain things, but you're still free to do others.

All I'm saying is that Negative Liberty is the other side of the same coin of "freedom", and adverts enforced on consumers mean consumers aren't free from adverts.

That makes no sense at all: you're putting "freedom" in quotation marks. What did you mean by that? Are you referring to a free market or something else now?

About your second point, did you mean ads forced on consumers? That's not the same as ads enforced on consumers, which is force done out of necessity. That's also not the same as enforced advertising, which does not make sense to me.

The claim that consumers aren't free from ads is obvious, but that has nothing to do with your argument, which is that ads defile free markets. They don't: free markets allow businesses to advertise. If you want advertising limited, then you do so through regulation, which goes against free markets.

Therefore completing the picture of "freedom" in the market with negative as well as positive liberty, with a lack of negative liberty there is less "freedom" in the market, even with complete positive liberty with no government regulation (especially with no government regulation). So with a more complete concept of freedom in the market, adverts do indeed defile freedom in the market. You only want to consider half the picture of freedom when referring to free market values, I want to consider the whole picture. My point is that Free Market Values aren't really free if they only take into account half of the concept of freedom and don't take into account the other half that reveals a lack of freedom.

Free markets are not referred to as "free" because they "don't take into account the other half" but because they have minimum government regulation. That's the problem when you try to conflate "free" in "free market" with positive and negative liberty.

That's why I told you earlier: you're talking about two points (free market vs. positive and negative liberty) that have nothing to do with each other. You're attempting to equate "free" in "free market" (which refers to less gov't regulation) with free will. That's incorrect.

Considering the other half (negative liberty), there's a lack of freedom.

You will want to agree to disagree I'm sure. I disagree to merely disagree as though it's just opinion, for the sake of objectively complete consistency rather than cherry-picked consistency.

The problem isn't that we agree to disagree. It's that you're using the wrong terms! You're comparing an economic phenomenon such as a free market with a philosophical one like free will.

Surely you're not unable to see the obvious point I'm making?

I am throwing you a bone with a term that you could use to make sense of your otherwise non-sensical point. I'm not presuming to know the sense behind your non-sensical point, and to do your work for you to make the suggested term make sense of your point for you would be to presume.
I'm saying "here's a term you can use how you please, in case it helps" and you're complaining that I don't fully define it before offering it to you as though I could and should know the sense behind your nonsense. If you made sense, I wouldn't need to throw you a bone to help you make sense!

You're redefining the term "free market" to suit your views concerning positive liberty! That's why your argument is contradictory: you think that ads defile free markets when they are actually a result of the same! The implication is that regulation will not defile free markets but they do the opposite, and for obvious reasons.

I know what advertising and free markets mean. You're insisting the latter is half of what would be consistent for the complete term of "free" in "free markets". I'm proposing the apparently radical suggestion that freedom means freedom in the complete sense of "not just positive but negative liberty" as well. Is that so radical of me to suggest using a complete definition of "free" when considering the term "free markets"?

No, you don't! You've been using the wrong terms. First, you talked about "enforced advertising," then ads enforced on viewers when you should have used "forced." You thought "free" in "free market" involves issues concerning free will, but it actually refers to less gov't regulation.

What you should have said is that advertising defiles positive liberty, which is not only obvious but something you even admitted above!

It makes perfect sense if you consider the complete definition of freedom, and not just the cherry-picked one.

Your bizarre blanket statement that "coercion is never minimised" doesn't make sense with either your half-definition of freedom or my full one.

If you don't care to justify it, then that's fine, it's pretty plainly irrelevant and if we both accept that we can move on.

There you go again! You know very well that "freedom" has many definitions, but assume all of them apply to free markets. That makes no sense at all.

Again here you're only cherry picking one half of the full concept of freedom and saying that's correct, and that using the complete definition of freedom is incorrect.

You're free to cherry pick all you like, but unfortunately I'm not going to agree with you if you do so.

Decreasing or eliminating advertising does indeed violate the positive liberty of businesses to advertise, you're absolutely right!
I'm not saying that no adverts doesn't defile free market values, I'm saying that adverts defile free market values. The clue is in the thread title.

The problem isn't my cherry picking but that you are using the wrong terms. You're trying to argue that a free market involves both less government regulation and more positive liberty. The latter point makes no sense at all because a free market is an economic phenomenon which has factors which constrain individuals.

The argument given in the thread title is wrong.

I'm saying that market pressures force businesses to enforce advertising (long or short) on people if they want to achieve significant success, or any success at all.
Everything you've said so far insists on sticking to only half of the concept of freedom when referring to free markets. Consider the whole concept and try again.

Exactly! Those market pressures are part of a free market. Thus, advertising does not defile a free market but is the result of it.

This confirms by belief that you don't know what you're talking about!

That's the whole problem - you're not referring to voluntary/involuntary trade or positive/negative liberty in your definition of free market.
You would have been correct to refer to positive liberty in reference to your conception of free markets, as lack of government regulation maximises positive liberty in the market and voluntary trade for companies.
But you would still be ignoring the other half of "free" in markets by ignoring negative liberty in markets, with whatever degree of government regulation.
Enforcing adverts in exchange for your money, that you wished to spend on something without adverts, is not a voluntary trade if you don't want adverts. You are not free to choose the product or service or lifestyle as a whole without adverts in so many cases. Even an effective ad-blocker doesn't block billboards and other such forms of advertising. Ignoring this half of the concept of freedom is a problem with your discussion of freedom in the marketplace. "Free" is thereby the wrong word for markets, whether mixed, with fiat currency, corportate by-laws and registration, contrascts or otherwise.

It's not a personal philosophy that only I have about liberty - positive and negative liberty have been staples of the concept "freedom" for decades by any capable philosopher as well as economist. I used the correct terms from the start, but you didn't think it through as I correctly identified, using only the cherry picked half that allows "Free Market values" to fit with your myopic conception of free markets.

Do you now see your argument falling apart? You mention that businesses are driven by market pressures to advertise, and advertising leads to less free will for people. But those market pressures are part of the same free market! Thus, advertising does not defile free markets. If any, they are a result of such.

I worked for years in a finance department, studied economics modules at university level and have accountancy qualifications, but nice try. My points stand regardless of my knowledge and accomplishments though - I don't intend to appeal to my authority here.

Increasing "sales" is the issue, because a trade that costs no money isn't a net sale in the sense that no direct or indirect net income or expense results anywhere for anyone (even if you officially record it as a zero or discounted sale, or sunk cost, irrecoverable debt, write-off, suspense entry - whatever for the sake of balancing your accounts). Businesses at all are not necessary for the purposes of just passing free stuff around for free - so any expansion of businesses otherwise is therefore meaningless when no money need be involved, it's just people giving and taking content and commodities. Credit implies payment at a later date, and sharing stuff for free implies no payment at any date. Are you deliberately trying to miss my point?

I don't trust what anonymous forum members say about themselves as they can't prove them, anyway, so I look at their arguments. And what you've said so far proves what I said.

It gets worse when you start imagining things, like trade that costs no money and "passing free stuff around for free," and then imply that this characterizes most of markets!

What, so since "freedom to distribute involves advertisting", browsing the internet needs advertising or the connection won't physically work? Internet sites are there if you have the hardware. The software is just digital and internet connections exist even if nobody is paying money to anyone to "allow" their use. The hardware and everything else would exist and work completely fine without advertising involved at any stage. Any inclusion of adverts at any stage is purely circumstantial contingent upon the economic model we just so happen to currently use, and not intrinsitc to the physical operation of something like browsing the internet. There are many other obvious examples. As I said, curtailing advertising defiles positive liberty in the market, but this doesn't stop the allowance of advertising defiling negative liberty in the market. I can make another thread about curtailing advertising defiling free markets values if you like and it would be just as true as this thread about advertising defiling free market values.

The two sides to the same coin reveal an important and necessary point about the concept of freedom.

Curtailing advertising defiles positive liberty but not free markets, which is your argument, remember?

The problem is that you equated positive liberty with free markets, and that's incorrect.

Credit expansion or no, any inclusion of money is unnecessary to the physical functionality and sharing of e.g. sharing digital content/intellectual property - you can just "do it" freely.

Trying sharing digital content without using money. Let's see how you will pay for your Internet and electricity bills and computer!

"Money doesn't need only capitalists" was explained immediately after I said it if you had cared to read it: "in particular as many economic models need or at least use money".
In contrast to Capitalism needing money to function, money doesn't therefore need Capitalism - that would be commiting the "Affirming the consequent" logical fallacy, as money can be utilised in other economic models than Capitalism.
I was covering up the holes you left in your "False dilemma" fallacy attempted here: "Did you mean that money needs "[a] capitalist," or capitalists in general? Perhaps you mean capitalists need money?" I'm sorry that my being thorough made no sense to you.

Money is not an entity that requires one thing or another. It is a medium of exchange. Therefore, the claim that money needs or doesn't need capitalism is nonsense.

I covered this:

"In short, the scope is in no way limited to digital things, the discussion is universally relevant, only more obviously so with digital things as just one example, in accordance with the general trend towards the potential free distribution of more and more things."

Give examples of non-digital things, and show how they represent most goods and services in current economies.

Again - the underlying hole in your argument is your half-conception of freedom. You will stand your ground though I'm sure, even in the face of my completed conception of freedom - in relation to markets or otherwise, it holds universally.
And again - I'm not saying curtailing advertising doesn't defile free market values when I say adverts defile free market values - this implication that you're attempting commits the "Affirming a disjunct" fallacy.

I'm sure the very idea of shortening advert duration, never mind merely eliminating adverts as I would support, would never get a majority vote even though adverts appear to be generally seen as a nuisance. Most people are conservative and/or easily manipulable by sophistry like "Free markets only refer to half the whole picture of freedom", and don't think it through. If they did and they realised everyone else did, a majority vote would be easy. As it is, the powers that be: capitalist businesses would put up a hell of a fight to stop the elimination of advertising as it amounts to an opportunity cost. I'm just speaking truth, I'm not expecting anyone to listen - it's clear you won't.

The problem isn't my "half-conception of freedom." It's that you're attempting to insert many definitions of freedom in "free market," and the result has been disastrous.

To recap, you just admitted that market pressures force businesses to advertise. But those market pressures are part of a free market. Given that, your claim that advertising defiles free markets is wrong.

Next, you argue that values of a free market are equivalent to positive liberty, but that makes no sense at all because the same market is characterized by pressures that may affect positive liberty. So, your comparison is also wrong.

Finally, the implication of your argument is that with less advertising, there should be more positive liberty, and thus a free market that's not defiled. That is also wrong, because less advertising can only take place with regulation, and that goes against a free market. The only way you can counter the latter is to show that a free market also involves positive liberty, but that's the same positive liberty that is affected by market pressures!

And all that because you were trying to force a comparison between free markets and positive liberty!

[Karpel Tunnel]

There is an irony here, which exposes a hidden coercion in the "free" market.

I'd like to sidestep the coercion issue, which I think is the strongest in relation to children, and very strong there indeed.
I'd like to look at it from a moral angle.

There should be a conservative moral upproar over advertising that just never stops. It is not the effects, but the character deficit shown by the lying and manipulation that is the moral crime. A conservative might hold the potential customer responsible for being swayed by the lies, but conservatives present values as not simply consequentialist. There are character-based demands on both religious and non-religious conservative fronts. That powerful people would do this, openly in front of others - that is being horrendous role models to children and demeaning themselves and poisoning the communication of society should be considered flatly immoral. In and of itself and of course some conservatives do feel this way. But there is no ongoing outrage and the focus becomes on their freedom of speech. But that is conflating two different issues. One need not ban the practices one condemns morally. Relgious conservatives have been more likely to try to ban the entire set of immoral acts, but secular conservatives have not had this habit as must and perhaps even less than liberals. And neither group needs to accept that we must ban all that is immoral. There is no obstacle to the outrage unless it is tactical. They fear the liberals will use the conservative outrage to restrict corporations.

But that is being consequentialist and not maintaining one's values. It is giving up one's values tactically. An accusation conservatives aim at liberals - and not without merit.

Liberals of course, much more open to ideas of coercion where conservatives are more wary of considering it should also be outraged. But the great mass of liberals are also silent about advertising. Many of them also thinking that freedom of speech demands silence about this. Others just thinking it is part of the furniture of modern life and to complain or judge is simply wasting time.

Make something seem inevitable and you've won the battle.

But shaming is being avoided by both of the supposedly two sides of politics.

Shame the motherfuckers. I mean, at gatherings, parties, public condemnation via media and so on. This is done around other character issues, but conservatives and liberals. Both aim their pc judgments at various targets.

But for different and also overlapping reasons both conservatives and liberals are in the main silent. They treat it like the weather. As if it was not individuals making according to both conservative and liberal values immoral choices and revealing deep character flaws.

Silence.

And this post is not intended as a rallying cry. It's to point out the deep hypocrisy and tactical cynicism in both parties and in both parties' supporters.

They've all been bought or fooled.

A nation of children and hypocrites.

[Silhouette]

I'd like to sidestep the coercion issue, which I think is the strongest in relation to children, and very strong there indeed.
I'd like to look at it from a moral angle.

I agree with everything you've said on this moral angle. Good post.

You're comparing an economic phenomenon such as a free market with a philosophical one like free will.

Note that this is a philosophy forum, right?

Interestingly I've previously gotten the same form of argument as the one you're pushing, on the subject of free will.
It goes like this:
Me: The term "free" in free will has to be limited in a very specific way if it is to be an appropriate word to be used in the term. If you look at a wider conception of freedom, it becomes apparent that it's not appropriate for the term.
Other: That's not what free will means.

It should be obvious that the other person's criticism is already contained within my argument, and that I'm simply rejecting their premise.

Exchange the term "free will" for "free market" for relevance to this thread, and the same applies: I am well aware of what "free market" is supposed to mean - what you keep saying is so obvious it's even in the second sentence of the wikipedia article: "In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities."

Rejecting the premise on the grounds that I'm arguing is not the same as not knowing about the premise - logically you have to know about the premise to reject it! That's the whole point of this thread.
Yet still you repeatedly accuse me of "using the wrong terms", that my points make "no sense at all" and I "don't know what [I'm] talking about".
I'm disgreeing with the terms, providing just reason to do so, and correcting them in light of said reason.

It was supposed to open up a wider point about the ideology of "freedom" as a whole, which Nietzsche addresses brilliantly upon application to free will, as I typed out on another thread. Applying the wider point back to freedom in the market simply shows the flaws in the whole freedom ideology as particularly applicable to the specific example of it that I decided to target for this thread.

Finally, the implication of your argument is that with less advertising, there should be more positive liberty, and thus a free market that's not defiled. That is also wrong, because less advertising can only take place with regulation, and that goes against a free market.

You're also continuing with the "affirming a disjunct" argument that I already identified: that since I'm suggesting free markets are not free on account of things such as advertising, I must be suggesting that a lack of adverts would free up free markets. I've affirmed at least once already that a lack of adverts would also violate freedom, just from the other direction.

I'd love to say this has been a fruitful exchange but all I've got from it is just confirmation of what I already knew: that I can never seem to be psychic enough to phrase things well enough to pre-empt at least someone's refusal to attempt to see my point before opposing it.

[ralfy]

Note that this is a philosophy forum, right?

Exactly! So, why are you using an economic term like "free market"? You could have instead referred to positive liberty.

Interestingly I've previously gotten the same form of argument as the one you're pushing, on the subject of free will.
It goes like this:
Me: The term "free" in free will has to be limited in a very specific way if it is to be an appropriate word to be used in the term. If you look at a wider conception of freedom, it becomes apparent that it's not appropriate for the term.
Other: That's not what free will means.

The problem isn't your definition of free will but your attempt in comparing that and a free market. That's why your argument cannot stand: you argue that ads defile free market values but they are actually a result of such. Implicitly, you imagine regulation of ads to support free market values but they actually do the opposite.

It should be obvious that the other person's criticism is already contained within my argument, and that I'm simply rejecting their premise.

The problem isn't so much that but that you cause your very argument to fall apart when you brought up the issue of market pressures, which counters your comparison.

Exchange the term "free will" for "free market" for relevance to this thread, and the same applies: I am well aware of what "free market" is supposed to mean - what you keep saying is so obvious it's even in the second sentence of the wikipedia article: "In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities."

In which case, why are you arguing that ads defile that when businesses in competition with each other are free to show ads in any way they want because of the same free market values?

Rejecting the premise on the grounds that I'm arguing is not the same as not knowing about the premise - logically you have to know about the premise to reject it! That's the whole point of this thread.
Yet still you repeatedly accuse me of "using the wrong terms", that my points make "no sense at all" and I "don't know what [I'm] talking about".
I'm disgreeing with the terms, providing just reason to do so, and correcting them in light of said reason.

Because you also explained why businesses engage in advertising, which turns out to support values of a free market (i.e., using various means, such as advertising, as businesses compete with each other), with the implication that regulating advertising is supposed to do the opposite of defiling free market values when they actually do the opposite.

It was supposed to open up a wider point about the ideology of "freedom" as a whole, which Nietzsche addresses brilliantly upon application to free will, as I typed out on another thread. Applying the wider point back to freedom in the market simply shows the flaws in the whole freedom ideology as particularly applicable to the specific example of it that I decided to target for this thread.

What is "freedom ideology"? If it refers to those who advocate a free market but don't realize that it isn't really free, then doesn't that go against the claim that ads defile free market values?

You're also continuing with the "affirming a disjunct" argument that I already identified: that since I'm suggesting free markets are not free on account of things such as advertising, I must be suggesting that a lack of adverts would free up free markets. I've affirmed at least once already that a lack of adverts would also violate freedom, just from the other direction.

That's questionable because you are seeing the idea of a free market from the perspective of a customer. In short, you want regulation on ads because you are forced to view them. Thus, a free market for you is one where the positive liberty of individuals is emphasized.

But that's NOT a free market because in order to regulate ads you need more government intervention. In response to businesses that you argue show too many ads or ads that are too long, what you need to do as a customer is to support only businesses that show the least ads.

Thus, ads don't defile free market values but are a result of that. It's regulating ads that defile those values.

I'd love to say this has been a fruitful exchange but all I've got from it is just confirmation of what I already knew: that I can never seem to be psychic enough to phrase things well enough to pre-empt at least someone's refusal to attempt to see my point before opposing it.

Here's what I gathered so far: positive liberty refers to free will, and ultimately that can only take place in the most primitive and isolated situations, where your thoughts and actions are pressured by the natural environment, if not by the smallest group of people you can join.

A free market refers to an economic phenomenon where there is no government intervention, which essentially means one or more people who are part of an authority that controls the human group that participates in such a phenomenon. Such a market can only exist in the form of barter or different forms of promissory notes whose use is agreed upon by both parties engaged in trade. That is why at best a free market today is one where there is the least government regulation. What we have today are mostly mixed economies.

Advertising is a means to inform the public about goods and services available and to encourage them to patronize companies whose products are being promoted. They don't defile free market values because such a market is characterized by market pressures involving competition, which means due to the same pressures businesses resort to various means to maximize sales, and thus maximize profits, and that includes advertising in different ways. Thus, advertising in no way defiles free market values.

However, as you put it, advertising that's excessive defiles positive liberty, and that's obvious. But avoiding excessive advertising requires regulation, and that goes against a free market.

In which case, the best that can be said is that advertising defiles positive liberty, but in order to counter that, one will require government regulation which, in general, may also defile the same.

[Silhouette]

As much as I'd love to go around in circles with you, you're saying very little that's new here, that I've not already responded to.

I'm sorry for confusing you by philosophically critiquing values of "freedom" in reference to the market on a philosophy forum, using the economic term "free market" on the economics subforum.
You're putting your foot down that I should have instead accepted the intended use of the term "free market" and concluded that adverts don't defile its values. I get that, I got it from the start.
That's your prerogative, and in kind I am simply arguing that philosophically it's insufficient to accept the terms you're given and relate everything back to them. Philosophically it's deeper to critique the terms you're given from the ground up: in this case "freedom" in reference to the market. Your insistence on reverting back to these "correct terms" intrinsically commits the "appeal to authority" fallacy - and there is no reasoning with fallacies because they operate outside of the bounds of reason - say, in pathos or ethos instead of logos.
For as long as you remain arguing in this way, nothing constructive is going to come from this thread - we will continue to go around in circles. Is that what you want?

What is "freedom ideology"?

"Freedom ideology" is common in the States, where at least a reputation has sprung up of congratulating one another about how one is so free to live there. It is "ideology" because these people who are participating in spreading and affirming this notion clearly have not philosophically deconstructed the concept of freedom and realised it is just one side of coin, whose other side necessarily tells a different story. I strongly recommend reading the Nietzsche quote I previously linked if you haven't already - it goes beyond just free will.

You acknowledge certain examples yourself: how businesses in a "free market" are not free from the need to respond to market pressures if they want to stay in businesses, and how customers (surely they're part of the "free market", yes?) can barely get away from ads at the best of times. Using the accepted definition of the "free market", to which you appear to be intellectually bound to, these deficits of freedom surely bring to light a case to reject the term "free market" as referring to a market that defiles certain freedoms - even if it supports others. Yes, "free market" is supposed to refer to a lack of government regulation, in which case the blanket term "free" in reference to "market" is lacking these very specific qualifications of what exactly "free" is supposed to refer to in the context of the "market", as well as what it is not referring to. Clearly free is not "meant" to refer to all aspects of the market as one could easily be led to believe by the name alone. Yes, it's just a goddamn name, and names are meant to be short and snappy. This is why I make threads such as this one to clarify how the short and snappy is misleading.

Thus, a free market for you is one where the positive liberty of individuals is emphasized.

I've kindly asked you twice now to refrain from commiting the formal fallacy of "affirming a disjunct".

Just because I am saying adverts defile free market values, doesn't mean I'm saying a lack of adverts wouldn't also defile free market values. I'm making my thread about the former, not the latter, even if the latter is just as true.

Are we clear on this one yet?
Freedom is more complicated than what "freedom ideology" would have far too many uncritical people believe.

If I were to merely support only businesses that show the least ads, this relies on the same market forces that drive businesses to maximise advertisement. This cannot solve the problem of adverts defiling free market values - or "freedom in all forms in the context of the market" if you still can't get around the authority of the "correct" definition to which you so desperately cleave. Therefore, in the interests of freedom, it's necessary to open up the conversation beyond simply "market forces".

Yes, positive liberty refers to free will and thus to the wider concept of freedom, at least in part - as divided in an exhaustive and binary fashion between "positive" and "negative" liberty i.e. +ve/-ve freedom.
The "free market" does well for "net" freedom - I respect that. But there are still aspects of the market that involve a lack of freedom - including but not limited in particular to customer exposure to advertisement. Freedom in the marketplace is a wider concept - hence this thread.

[Karpel Tunnel]

ralfy wrote:
Finally, the implication of your argument is that with less advertising, there should be more positive liberty, and thus a free market that's not defiled. That is also wrong, because less advertising can only take place with regulation, and that goes against a free market.

There are other ways there could be less advertising. We could learn that most of it is manipulative shit, more or less rude and cynical, and this would make it less appealing as a form of communication. It could shift toward information, rather that symbolic triggering.

Advertising is a means to inform the public about goods and services available and to encourage them to patronize companies whose products are being promoted.

Advertising is generally not a means to inform the public, though it does this in part, but not always even in part. At the very least other verbs should be prioritized over 'inform' and added. If the function and goal of advertising is to inform, the makers of it and the people who pay them to make the advertising are extremely confused about how to go about this.

[ralfy]

As much as I'd love to go around in circles with you, you're saying very little that's new here, that I've not already responded to.

I'm sorry for confusing you by philosophically critiquing values of "freedom" in reference to the market on a philosophy forum, using the economic term "free market" on the economics subforum.

"Free" in "free market" is not the same as "free" in "free will." That's why you cannot use the former to "philosophically [critique]" the latter.

You're putting your foot down that I should have instead accepted the intended use of the term "free market" and concluded that adverts don't defile its values. I get that, I got it from the start.
That's your prerogative, and in kind I am simply arguing that philosophically it's insufficient to accept the terms you're given and relate everything back to them. Philosophically it's deeper to critique the terms you're given from the ground up: in this case "freedom" in reference to the market. Your insistence on reverting back to these "correct terms" intrinsically commits the "appeal to authority" fallacy - and there is no reasoning with fallacies because they operate outside of the bounds of reason - say, in pathos or ethos instead of logos.
For as long as you remain arguing in this way, nothing constructive is going to come from this thread - we will continue to go around in circles. Is that what you want?

I did not refer to any authority on the matter. Rather, I'm using common sense: "free" in free market refers to less government regulation, if not none at all. It does not refer to the wide range of definitions for "freedom" as discussed in philosophy.

"Freedom ideology" is common in the States, where at least a reputation has sprung up of congratulating one another about how one is so free to live there. It is "ideology" because these people who are participating in spreading and affirming this notion clearly have not philosophically deconstructed the concept of freedom and realised it is just one side of coin, whose other side necessarily tells a different story. I strongly recommend reading the Nietzsche quote I previously linked if you haven't already - it goes beyond just free will.

The problem isn't that they "have not philosophy deconstructed the concept of freedom" (if that is even possible) but that they're not aware that their free market is neither free nor a free market. That is, market pressures is what leads to advertising, and as more wealth and power is concentrated among a few, more advertising.

That's why advertising doesn't defile free market values but result from them, and they worsen as fewer competitors emerge. The only way to avoid not just more advertising but even oligopolies is gov't regulation, but they can't accept that, either.

You acknowledge certain examples yourself: how businesses in a "free market" are not free from the need to respond to market pressures if they want to stay in businesses, and how customers (surely they're part of the "free market", yes?) can barely get away from ads at the best of times. Using the accepted definition of the "free market", to which you appear to be intellectually bound to, these deficits of freedom surely bring to light a case to reject the term "free market" as referring to a market that defiles certain freedoms - even if it supports others. Yes, "free market" is supposed to refer to a lack of government regulation, in which case the blanket term "free" in reference to "market" is lacking these very specific qualifications of what exactly "free" is supposed to refer to in the context of the "market", as well as what it is not referring to. Clearly free is not "meant" to refer to all aspects of the market as one could easily be led to believe by the name alone. Yes, it's just a goddamn name, and names are meant to be short and snappy. This is why I make threads such as this one to clarify how the short and snappy is misleading.

The word "free" is used because it's a lot shorter than "a market with less government regulations, if not none at all," but that doesn't mean that "free" should only be used philosophically!

I've kindly asked you twice now to refrain from commiting the formal fallacy of "affirming a disjunct".

That argument is completely wrong because that means "free" can only be used in the broadest terms!

Just because I am saying adverts defile free market values, doesn't mean I'm saying a lack of adverts wouldn't also defile free market values. I'm making my thread about the former, not the latter, even if the latter is just as true.

Are we clear on this one yet?

I'm not referring to the former but the latter, and what I'm saying is that the latter is wrong: ads don't defile free market values but result from them. Do I have to explain that to you again?

Freedom is more complicated than what "freedom ideology" would have far too many uncritical people believe.

I agree, but you have to understand that your thread isn't about that.

If I were to merely support only businesses that show the least ads, this relies on the same market forces that drive businesses to maximise advertisement. This cannot solve the problem of adverts defiling free market values - or "freedom in all forms in the context of the market" if you still can't get around the authority of the "correct" definition to which you so desperately cleave. Therefore, in the interests of freedom, it's necessary to open up the conversation beyond simply "market forces".

Your support for businesses showing the least ads relies on market pressures if you experience lower revenues or higher costs by viewing more ads.

Again, ads don't defile free market values because those values are determined by market pressures, not a blanket definition of "freedom" that you keep insisting upon.

Your last point is wrong because ads are shown as a result of market pressures, as you admitted earlier. That's why ads don't defile free market values but result from them.

Your biggest mistake was to admit that ads are shown because of market pressures. That puts to question your claims that I am desperately cleaving to definitions or relying on authority or giving a false exclusionary. Rather, I'm using what you admit against you.

Yes, positive liberty refers to free will and thus to the wider concept of freedom, at least in part - as divided in an exhaustive and binary fashion between "positive" and "negative" liberty i.e. +ve/-ve freedom.
The "free market" does well for "net" freedom - I respect that. But there are still aspects of the market that involve a lack of freedom - including but not limited in particular to customer exposure to advertisement. Freedom in the marketplace is a wider concept - hence this thread.

Do you now see how you're contradicting your argument? A free market leads to a lack of freedom because it increases customer exposure to ads. That's why ads don't defile free market values but result from them. If you want less advertising, then you will not gov't regulation, and that is what defiles free market values.

What you should have done was explain why free markets lead to more freedom for business owners but less for customers, not to mention workers. But that's not about free markets but about free market capitalism.

Finally, this also reveals cracks in the so-called "freedom ideology" espoused by U.S. citizens if it turns out that they want more goods and services to choose from (which means less gov't regulation) but don't want a lot of ads (which means more gov't regulation). But they will understand that only if they realize that ads don't defile free market values but result from market pressures which define those values (in short, the opposite of what you've been claiming). With capitalism, what's added to those values include maximizing profits and ROIs.

[ralfy]

There are other ways there could be less advertising. We could learn that most of it is manipulative shit, more or less rude and cynical, and this would make it less appealing as a form of communication. It could shift toward information, rather that symbolic triggering.

FWIW, businesses have been doing that for decades. Hence, "hidden persuaders," product placement, and connected points, such as planned obsolescence.

Advertising is generally not a means to inform the public, though it does this in part, but not always even in part. At the very least other verbs should be prioritized over 'inform' and added. If the function and goal of advertising is to inform, the makers of it and the people who pay them to make the advertising are extremely confused about how to go about this.

Actually, it is. Otherwise, businesses wouldn't spend on it.

Also, please explain your last sentence, and if possible, cite sources from those who study advertising.

[Karpel Tunnel]

FWIW, businesses have been doing that for decades. Hence, "hidden persuaders," product placement, and connected points, such as planned obsolescence.

Yes, though I am not sure why you are telling me this.

Advertising is generally not a means to inform the public, though it does this in part, but not always even in part. At the very least other verbs should be prioritized over 'inform' and added. If the function and goal of advertising is to inform, the makers of it and the people who pay them to make the advertising are extremely confused about how to go about this.

Actually, it is. Otherwise, businesses wouldn't spend on it.

The bulk of commercials, for example, is not information, it is symbolic association, lies, implications, manipulation, entertainment to elicit feelings to get one to buy for reasons that have nothing to do with informaiton aobut the products. THIS is why they advertise. Information may be as minimal as the brand name, so you know what to buy after you have been bombarded by the rest.

Also, please explain your last sentence, and if possible, cite sources from those who study advertising.[/quote]I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let's you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

To flatly say that advertising is about information is like saying a politician's speech is used to relay information.

If that's what a politician's speech is.for, it is being used terribly for this purpose. It is doing other things and for successful politicians, doing these things well.

[ralfy]

Yes, though I am not sure why you are telling me this.

Because what you believe we "could learn" has been done for decades. The idea of hidden persuaders was raised way back in the late 1950s. Planned obsolescence was observed during the mid-1920s.

The bulk of commercials, for example, is not information, it is symbolic association, lies, implications, manipulation, entertainment to elicit feelings to get one to buy for reasons that have nothing to do with informaiton aobut the products. THIS is why they advertise. Information may be as minimal as the brand name, so you know what to buy after you have been bombarded by the rest.

The information part comes in when you become aware that there is such a product available. They obviously include more so that consumers will notice them.

One can, of course, imagine a business insisting on some principle to provide only information (like a spec sheet) on their product, and on top of that, be as honest as possible about what they're selling, and then imagine it succeeding such that competitors follow suit.

I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let's you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

That's when you go to a store and look at the contents or spec sheets and ask questions. Of course, you can choose not to do that, but that also means you will probably always act on impulse whether or not you are shown ads.

To flatly say that advertising is about information is like saying a politician's speech is used to relay information.

Don't confuse less information with no information. You have the brand and the product itself in terms of appearance, just as a politician's speech refers to a topic. If you want to know more, then investigate.

If that's what a politician's speech is.for, it is being used terribly for this purpose. It is doing other things and for successful politicians, doing these things well.

I can't understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing that speeches should do more than just inform, which implies that advertisements should do the same, or that they don't inform, which is also what advertisements do?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Because what you believe we "could learn" has been done for decades. The idea of hidden persuaders was raised way back in the late 1950s. Planned obsolescence was observed during the mid-1920s.

Sure, this I knew. What I meant by....

There are other ways there could be less advertising. We could learn that most of it is manipulative shit, more or less rude and cynical, and this would make it less appealing as a form of communication. It could shift toward information, rather that symbolic triggering.

[emphasis added now]includes the idea of learning first in general - iow most people - and further the idea that it is unacceptable, negative, immoral (for those who think in moral terms. That there becomes a critical mass of distaste for the way advertising is made, it's purpose, etc. And this affects advertising's effectiveness. IOW posts like Mowk's and other communication like this affects attitudes and people do not put up with it. That is, learn all the judgments explicit in my quote above, not the technical skills or just about the technical skills that are used to make advertising effective manipulative shit, but that it is manipulative shit.

The information part comes in when you become aware that there is such a product available.

I bolded part, because you said advertising was information, period. Now you are saying that information is a part. Well, that's a big step in the direction I have been pushing for. Further I have made it clear that there is some minimal information in advertising and what that needs to be. Your explanation above, what you are telling me, I have already said about the information part.

They obviously include more so that consumers will notice them.

Actually I don't think so. It is only because we have these companies screaming at us a lot of manipulative shit, that a new company, say, needs to do more than give information. It is in the current context that to be noticed companies tend to need this. Some do manage to get by on word of mouth and influential customers. But given the current state of things, and that, in general, given people's having given up or not really thought about it, current attitudes present no loss for creating manipulative shit, yes, it is necessary to compete. It need not be like that.

One can, of course, imagine a business insisting on some principle to provide only information (like a spec sheet) on their product, and on top of that, be as honest as possible about what they're selling, and then imagine it succeeding such that competitors follow suit.

Which would likely require shifts in the attitudes of customers and potential ones.

I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let's you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

That's when you go to a store and look at the contents or spec sheets and ask questions. Of course, you can choose not to do that, but that also means you will probably always act on impulse whether or not you are shown ads.

There are all sorts of product comparisons out there and our impulses could shift to using these as step one. This would take a more generalized allowing of reactions like Mowk's to spread, people encouraging his reactions to what advertising is. There would also, likely, have to be political discourse fights against how the corporations react to this in the media they primarily control.

Don't confuse less information with no information.

But I haven't. I have said a few times that there is some information in advertising.
I someone says X is B.
and I say that mainly X is not B, though there is a minimal amout of B in X, then I have not said
there is no B in X.

I can't understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing that speeches should do more than just inform, which implies that advertisements should do the same, or that they don't inform, which is also what advertisements do?

I am saying that most of what political speeches are is not information and, now I am futher adding, not logical argument. It is manipulative shit. Heck, I might even agree with the goal of the political speech inquestion. But what it nearly always is is mainly, mainly, symbolic triggers, manipulative use of metaphors and other rhetotical devices, emotional framing and so on. Yes, there is information in there, but

if we were to flatly describe political speeches as information.

A political speech's purpose is to distribute information, period.

Our description is primarily false.

There generally is some information in political speeches, but the bulk is not information, it is manipulative shit. Even if this is for good purposes by whoever is judging.

Advertising uses primarily non-information to sell it's products. Yes, the companies need you to know which product to buy. So, they give the minimal information so you can find their product. But they, in the main, do not use information in the advertising. Advertising is primarily symbolic and emotional triggers, implicit non-logical or illogical justifications, entertainment, lies, misleading associations or false associations, cognitive manipulative in general. That is the bulk of what advertising is.

The more we tell ourselves this must be what advertising is because the only way to change is to damage free speech or otherwise assume that advertising like this is simply inevitable, a lesser evil, we play into the hands of corporations that view us as meat with credit cards.

[ralfy]

[emphasis added now]includes the idea of learning first in general - iow most people - and further the idea that it is unacceptable, negative, immoral (for those who think in moral terms. That there becomes a critical mass of distaste for the way advertising is made, it's purpose, etc. And this affects advertising's effectiveness. IOW posts like Mowk's and other communication like this affects attitudes and people do not put up with it. That is, learn all the judgments explicit in my quote above, not the technical skills or just about the technical skills that are used to make advertising effective manipulative shit, but that it is manipulative shit.

Well, that is the main goal of advertising. Were you expecting otherwise?

I bolded part, because you said advertising was information, period. Now you are saying that information is a part. Well, that's a big step in the direction I have been pushing for. Further I have made it clear that there is some minimal information in advertising and what that needs to be. Your explanation above, what you are telling me, I have already said about the information part.

I didn't write "period." What I wrote is, "Advertising is a means to inform the public about goods and services available and to encourage them to patronize companies whose products are being promoted." That doesn't mean that they won't resort to "manipulative shit." Rather, they can't manipulate people into buying something without informing them what's being sold.

There's your information. The same goes for a politician who manipulates people into believing in something. The fact that he has to tell them what that something is means that he's informing them.

In which case, if what you want is information without manipulation, then read product labels and spec sheets. Don't waste your time implying that advertising should be such.

Actually I don't think so. It is only because we have these companies screaming at us a lot of manipulative shit, that a new company, say, needs to do more than give information. It is in the current context that to be noticed companies tend to need this. Some do manage to get by on word of mouth and influential customers. But given the current state of things, and that, in general, given people's having given up or not really thought about it, current attitudes present no loss for creating manipulative shit, yes, it is necessary to compete. It need not be like that.

No, they do that so that ads will be noticed. Look up Packard's Hidden Persuaders.

Which would likely require shifts in the attitudes of customers and potential ones.

Or cause them to move to competitors.

There are all sorts of product comparisons out there and our impulses could shift to using these as step one. This would take a more generalized allowing of reactions like Mowk's to spread, people encouraging his reactions to what advertising is. There would also, likely, have to be political discourse fights against how the corporations react to this in the media they primarily control.

Those comparisons are not done using ads. Don't insist on turning ads into what they should not be, such as product labels and spec sheets.

But I haven't. I have said a few times that there is some information in advertising.
I someone says X is B.
and I say that mainly X is not B, though there is a minimal amout of B in X, then I have not said
there is no B in X.

Of course, there will always be information in ads, which is what I've been telling you. Otherwise, how can businesses manipulate people into buying things without telling them what to buy?

If your concern is manipulation, then you're wasting your time, because ads are supposed to do that.

I am saying that most of what political speeches are is not information and, now I am futher adding, not logical argument. It is manipulative shit. Heck, I might even agree with the goal of the political speech inquestion. But what it nearly always is is mainly, mainly, symbolic triggers, manipulative use of metaphors and other rhetotical devices, emotional framing and so on. Yes, there is information in there, but

Of course, which is what one should expect from speeches! If you want mostly information, read reports. If you want only information, then go for data sets.

You're wasting time trying to force advertisers and even those who give speeches not to use rhetorical devices.

if we were to flatly describe political speeches as information.

A political speech's purpose is to distribute information, period.

Our description is primarily false.

There generally is some information in political speeches, but the bulk is not information, it is manipulative shit. Even if this is for good purposes by whoever is judging.

What are you looking for? Politicians who speak like robots, read from figures, and then let you make your own conclusions. Then stop listening to speeches because they are supposed to do the opposite and go over spreadsheets by yourself.

Advertising uses primarily non-information to sell it's products. Yes, the companies need you to know which product to buy. So, they give the minimal information so you can find their product. But they, in the main, do not use information in the advertising. Advertising is primarily symbolic and emotional triggers, implicit non-logical or illogical justifications, entertainment, lies, misleading associations or false associations, cognitive manipulative in general. That is the bulk of what advertising is.

Of course! Why are you expecting otherwise? Did you want only performance measures? Read consumer surveys. Contents? Read product labels or schematics. Specifications? Read spec sheets. Whatever you do, don't insist on making ads what they shouldn't be.

The more we tell ourselves this must be what advertising is because the only way to change is to damage free speech or otherwise assume that advertising like this is simply inevitable, a lesser evil, we play into the hands of corporations that view us as meat with credit cards.

Must be? You must be kidding.

Damage to free speech? Of course not, unless you have this absurd view that free speech is speech that's free of any manipulation!