606

The idea feels like sci-fi because you're so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.

The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn't been valid for decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

OTA tv would no longer be possible, nor radio AM or FM.
Newspapers (what is left of them) would no longer be possible, neither wouild magazines.
A good deal of the internet is supported by ads too.
If you are willing to give up everything that is supported by ads, I suppose it could work.

[-] rapchee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

either governments and/or individuals would need to support them, it's hardly impossible

[-] Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago

There is state funded news media called European Broadcasting Union, which can do whatever without ads.

[-] Resol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yet their flagship television program, the Eurovision Song Contest, is still being sponsored.

[-] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe -1 points 2 weeks ago

Well, then broadcasters might be beholden to the whims of the government. Certain content might be promoted, and other content suppressed.

[-] Blueteamsecguy@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago

Because that absolutely doesn't happen now, it just removes the corporate middle man

[-] Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

And if there’s corporate and ads, that doesn’t happen?

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's not a bad point, and also highlights how we're simultaneously spoiled for "free" platforms, while we're surveilled for content and metrics, and bombarded by general and targeted advertising.

It's like, imagine a world where there was a water fountain at the corner of every street, every parking lot, and every bus stop. How convenient that would be! But every time you walked near one they would squawk out a little ad.

Sure without the ads, you wouldn't have the water fountains. But given the choice, I'd rather put up with the inconvenience of having to carry a water bottle when I'm out for a long time.

To me the choice seems obvious. Maybe to some people the ads don't feel like such a intrusion, though?

[-] Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

There is no mechanism by which OTA television can surveil you.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

I was listing out the costs of advertising broadly (that's a big one for me), but not every cost applies to every instance. I think my point works just as well without that proviso, though.

I'm curious, where do you stand on the worth it / not worth it question?

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

Lol.

You are aware that newspapers and magazines currently exist that are entirely behind paywalls right?

Both private subscriptions exist, as does government funding.

It is entirely possible to exist in a world that both has the BBC and has The Guardian...

[-] Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

You can call the cover price on a physical newspaper or magazine a paywall but it's a bit odd...

[-] GunValkyrie@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Large corporate owned would be impossible. What you would see are more locally small businesses that get more customers. However things would be more expensive overall at a glance. But I bet we would see general living go up for all.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Well yeah, less money leaving local economies.

[-] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

They’re getting way more money from stealing and selling data than ads anyway and really, TV and Radio only need to exist over the air for emergency or government stations so no income is needed. We shut off 3G, freeing up those radio and TV bands would be no problem.

[-] Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't pay for cable.

I get 117 over the air television stations In Chicago, I could get more with a better antenna.
They receive ZERO data about me or my watching habits, no way to steal it.

[-] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I sometimes wonder about this. If a company can't stay afloat without being paid for by advertisements, if their product can't make enough money on its own to keep the company working, then is that product that important?

I appreciate it doesn't work that way.

I just think if taxes could pay for water, gas, electric, healthcare, roads and infrastructure etc, then maybe we dont really need a fridge that can make a shopping list for us whilst i play doom on the screen.

Maybe we dont need slap chops and shakeweights.

Maybe we dont need all the crap out there that just isnt important.

Does my phone really need a folding screen or web access? Do we really need social media? Or youtube? In some cases, maybe, yes. But in the majority? No. I dont think we do.

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
606 points (97.5% liked)

Mildly Interesting

20009 readers
497 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS