• betheydocrime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Eh. Some level of advertising is necessary.

        I used to run a Magic: the Gathering shop right when it opened. We had great prices, great prizes, a phenomenal gaming area, and since I was the only employee I knew the customer service was top notch.

        None of that would have mattered, though, if people didn’t know I existed. I knew I could eventually rely on word of mouth to grow my community, but I still had to get the first customers in the door for the first time.

        And coming at it from the other side, lots of online services that we use for “free” are paid for by ads being shown to us. If those ads were banned, we would see large upsets in how those services are paid for. There’s potential for good here, since one possible response could be subsidization and commodification of websites like YouTube, reddit, and Facebook, but who knows what the chances of that could be.

        • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fine, Let’s centralize where ads are shown then. Rather than plastering them across the internet and ruining, just have ads.com. It can even have location-specific ads.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That doesn’t really solve the problem. Nobody will ever willingly go look for ads, meaning the reach is near zero. Modern marketing has largely moved on from the “reach as many people as possible” to “targeted ads reaching the majority of a demographic”, but the core tenant still relies on reach

          • brambledog@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I feel that google already perfectly fits this function.

            The only other issue is every other tech company wants to share Google’s pie.

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Let’s ban any ads targeted towards kids.

        Mmmm, spicy but it needs something.

        Let’s ban ads. Period.

        Oh fuck! Yup, all done now. Wow! Whew!

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wish but I don’t see the industry going down without a fight, starting with kids would be a reasonable first step towards the destruction of ads.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That is one of the things I really like about the rise of streaming services. You can actually pay to avoid ads, which means that, so far, my kids have basically had a childhood free of TV commercials.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly I’m just wondering what would count as advertisement for this, because it effectively bans any form of political campaigning, by candidates or ballot measure groups, except through public speaking events.

        You could even say door to door sales and solicitation would be banned, which immediately drags the law into a knock down drag out with the Mormons and JWs, because otherwise they can’t send their impressionable young members out to be screamed at and treated like nuisances so they come back to the fold jaded about “worldly” folks.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If ads work, that means you’re manipulating minors. Not acceptable.

      If ads don’t work, that means you’re wasting your money.

      Either way, there’s no reason advertising targeted to to minors should be allowed.

      The advertisers believe that targeting ads to kids is effective to manipulate kids to drive purchases of their products. That’s fucking diabolical. Anyone who’s in the industry and thinks this is OK needs to be taken to a farm.

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      I didn’t even know ads aimed at kids weren’t banned. You guys ban kinder eggs but not ads?

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Kids ads are just extra fucking annoying and they should be banned for that.

      “You’re a girl. Here’s sparkly princess. (Wooooooow! Her head moves!) Help her get to the the ball at Fuckington Castle. (She’s almost late! The prince will miss her!). Collect all of.her best friends and brushes. (She made it! Wow, stunning entrance! Everyone noticed). 🎶Sparkly Princess of Fuckingtoooon./🎶”

      “You’re a boy. My over raspy surfer dude voice from 1992 is all you need to listen to right now. Look at this gun. It’s called Bruisinator. Dominate the battlefield with your friends! (They’re pushing through! They won’t get far! Pew Pew pew pew). Bruisinator lights up with an optical laser and gives tactical commands! (We’re surrounded Bruisinator, what do we do?!..“Nice shot!”… What?) Part of the Havoc collection. Be a man. Batteries sold separately.”

      And I’m like… Why am I seeing this? I don’t even have kids and I don’t particularly like them. Who are these grown ups doing the voice overs and how funny do their faces look when they’re trying to be like this? Is it possible to get toys for kids that don’t want a gender role? Why does a seven year old need to toilet train a toy that pees itself? I wonder if any of the kids chucked a massive tantrum on set? These are no different to ads from the 80s, 90, and 00s. They seriously don’t change. I wonder how many children are now crying at their parents and screaming “I hate you!” because their parents won’t get the Sparkly Princess or the Fuckington Castle?

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well I don’t know what that says about me but please sign me up for a Bruisinator or three for Christmas.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I saw one supermarket in my area cover all cartoon characters or similar kid-targeting images on products with stickers saying something like “we don’t market to children.”

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    We need to stop using tax dollars to subsidize fucking sugar (of all kinds). It should be expensive to make the crap, not cheap.

    Oh, and then, likely taxed further when we buy it.

  • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Mexico has a ban on using cartoon characters on the front of any food packages that have warning labels for high calorie, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat, or sodium content.

    IMAGE

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    Honestly kids won’t understand the damage of junk food until they get older and it’s too late, and the industry knows that.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Kids are also still developing their pallettes. What they eat while they grow completely effects what foods they will desire and associate eating habits with when they grow older. Many junk foods share ingredients and flavours compared to a wider variety of whole foods.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months ago

    I have zero issues with this. Chester Cheetah shouldn’t be allowed to sell chips anymore than Joe Camel. If kids still want it it, let them find it.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Won’t anyone think of the junk food manufacturer’s profit projections?!

    Oh yeah, Congress will.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Thanks to Reagan and corporate lobbying and also MIchelle Obama being a complete shill, all public school food is mass produced diabetes in a can/bottle/cartontm

    The chocolate milk has 30g of sugar per serving. All drinks are zero calorie aspartame garbage. Every hot food is just frozen and reheated in an oven. There is no such thing as spice or salt allowed in a school cafeteria. All snacks are baked chips only, no other flavors besides regular and green onion. Fruit is either canned/packaged in dense syrup, or available fresh as a sour apple or orange. Vegetables are reheated cooked slop, or in rare cases provided fresh in a salad bar.

    The best bet for anything healthy is probably the orange juice.

    It has been more than a decade and I am still immensely pissed off that they took away both regular and spicy funyuns and gave nothing in return >:(

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Frankly just adopt Europe’s food health standards and that itself will probably do some decent numbers on improving public health.

    Just don’t go after portion size, those dish size comparison pics alone probably drive half of America’s international tourism.

  • RonnieB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is what needs to be done. Not taxes or bans on the consumer. Target those profiting from increasing our health care costs.