• Syrc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    That’s a generalization. The White Rose was doing “advertising”, and I think that’s all but “by the wealthy, against the working class”.

    Advertising has its place and can be beneficial to society, it just needs regulations (admittedly, A LOT of them).

    • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      The advertising industry had their chance to run an ethical business model.

      Now they have their own corporate spy agencies and propaganda networks.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I know, and that sucks. But outright banning something that has its benefits has always been detrimental (not to mention, they’d just find sneakier ways to do it and it’d be worse for everyone). We need regulations, a lot of them, not banning entirely.

        Plus who are we kidding, everyone in power is so deep into the advertising/propaganda industry that neither of those options have a decent chance of happening in our lifetime.

        • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Oh I certainly wasn’t proposing a practical transition method away from it. Nor do I think our authorities would willingly give up that gravy train. I’m just saying it’s an offense against freedom, privacy, and informed consent. Frankly, aadvertising threatens the stability of civilization itself, and it must be reigned in to ensure any kind of positive future. But a near total ban would be even better.