I worry about "tax thing I don't like" policies as then government is dependent on that revenue and now ... you to some extent want that activity to occur otherwise you've got budget issues. Now what is the incentive? Do you adjust taxes to eliminate it or does the state try to keep that revenue stream going?<p>I also wonder if somehow we're trying to seriously reduce advertising what that does to land of the internet where the users of the internet seem to choose / want "free" advertising based products. I'm not convinced folks just suddenly pay and upending that entire economy maybe a serious net negative.
If the goal is to reduce advertising, I don't see this being effective.<p>Businesses will just continue to advertise, and pay the tax. Because all their competitors have to pay the same tax, it's just a status quo. And businesses will raise the prices consumers pay to make up for the difference.<p>So ultimately it would wind up being a regressive tax, like tariffs, paid for by people in rising consumer prices.<p>Taxes can only deter behavior when there are alternatives. But there aren't alternatives to advertising. Businesses advertise because it works, because it increases their revenue.<p>Also, if taxes did slightly reduce demand for advertising, then the price of advertising would just decrease, that would be the main effect. There would probably be a <i>tiny</i> contraction in advertising space, but not enough that anyone would notice.<p>The main effect would be to raise prices for consumers, not to reduce ads, because there aren't substitutes for advertising.
The UK already does and so does Canada. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-digital-services-tax/digital-services-tax" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t...</a><p>"The provision of a social media service, internet search engine or online marketplace by a group includes the carrying on of any associated online advertising service. An associated online advertising service is an online service that facilitates online advertising and derives significant benefit from its association with the social media service, search engine or online marketplace."<p>Google Ads for instance invoices the tax to their customers. <a href="https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9750227?hl=en-GB" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9750227?hl=en-G...</a>
This post came from this HN discussion earlier this week:<p>What if we made advertising illegal?<p>[0]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269#43599667">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269#43599667</a>
Lawmakers typically prioritize economic growth, which is driven by consumption, and consumption is driven by advertising. Is there any way around this? I hate having my brain constantly invaded with no means of defending myself.
“isn’t that an argument for iterative policy, not inaction?”<p>EVERYTHING is an argument for iterative policy. Problem is the political system is presently incapable of it.<p>We have to upgrade democracy first. We can tackle any challenge once politicians have proper incentives.
The solution to ads may lie in stricter advertising rules. For instance, banning ads designed to manipulate rather than inform and setting standards for this criteria. Or even banning some advertising practices outright that are common methods for coercive or subtle influence. Imagine if a mouthwash commercial couldn't show an isolated women clearly stressed out about her breath to subtly ingrain an insecurity in their target audience.
A better idea is to simply further regulate advertising. We already have many rules about advertising. We used to have more we got rid of, most famously Rx drug ads weren’t allowed, but now they are. I’m sure there are many ideas people have for how to do this. Personally I would just like to see us ban ads for Rx drugs, OTC snake oil, gambling, alcohol, and cars. Maybe also fast food and junk food. It worked so well for tobacco. Don’t need to ban the products, just ban ads for them.
Agree that advertising can be harmful, and in abstract the idea of taxing it as a sort of cognitive pollution seems sensible.<p>However, I'm skeptical that the US would adopt such a complex and pro-consumer regulatory framework. Perhaps once the EU goes through a few iterations we'll get a watered-down version here.
The kind of advertising you hate the most is almost always paid for and done by advertising agencies that have to pay the income tax. So it kinda is already taxed.
A tax is a price.<p>A fine is a price.<p>If it's just a price, it's acceptable to do it. People who can afford it <i>will</i> do it. People who profit more from doing it than they're fined or taxed will do it forever.<p>The only way to stop a harm is to have a population that's on board with criminalising it, a law system that's empowered to stop it and prosecute it, and have a chain of escalating remedies all the way up to physical prevention (e.g. incarceration, or corporate death penalty)<p>We don't let people shit in the river. We don't let companies shit in the river. We know the harms. Advertising is shitting in your brain.
<i>chuckles while seeing this posted on Hacker News, meanwhile a "Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!" message appears at the bottom</i><p>in any case, ads are speech, and speech is protected. funny seeing this litigated over and over again here. it's actually concerning how many people on here want to ban speech because it's paid for.
Advertising is not the problem. The problem, the issue is human civilization is facing a situation we've never dealt with before, and that situation is all the ramifications of our population size.<p>The human race and every individual of that race has no background to understand how to operate in an environment where the magnitude of the number of others that can do everything they can do, can do it better, and for less salary creates a new situation we as a society do not know how to manage.<p>The situation has created billionaire oligarchs with more wealth and power than any individual that has ever lived. These powerful individuals are without the foundation nor maturity to navigate themselves without large amounts of self serving immaturity.<p>We need to, as a group large enough to make a cultural difference, acknowledge that all our evolutionary preparation and modern educations do not prepare us for what we face today, and our institutions we use to govern our civilization are not prepared for the power weld by modern oligarchs. They have the resources to perform selfish and shortsighted changes to all of society for their benefit alone. If history teaches the human race anything, situations such as this create monsters. We need to acknowledge we are creating monsters and they are our leadership class.