Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Blanket prohibitions are ... difficult creatures.

Highly progressive taxation seems to me a better practice, along with specific prohibitions and/or penalties. I'd floated this suggestion about six weeks ago:

Taxation will reduce overall amounts of advertising. Taxes raise costs. Quantities of price-elastic goods or activities decrease if taxed. Ergo: an advertising tax results in less advertising.

Individually targeted advertising is regulable through both practice and rights. Government can require or restrict technology. Government can give rights (of privacy, of control over personal information), or remove them (the ability of third parties to exchange, sell, or otherwise utilise personal information other than at the express direction of the subject of that information, say).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219556

(I agree largely with your characterisation of advertising. I do believe that there are certain categories and types which are less overtly socially harmful. Those largely represent small corners of the present advertising market.)



I'm really not sure why you think a blanket prohibition would be more difficult than taxation. If we can define what advertising is well enough to tax it, then we can define what advertising is well enough to ban it. Arguing for taxes versus fines is almost semantic--but I think there's a social element where things which are taxed rather than fined are "normal".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: