this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
1422 points (98.2% liked)
Mildly Interesting
20377 readers
279 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes yes yes, this!
I always joke w my gf, that when I'm president, I'll ban marketing. It's ugly, wasteful, useless (from the consumer's pov,) annoying, etc. I can't believe it's not hyper-regulated and taxed into oblivion.
How....Would you do that?
You do know that that marketing or advertising is far FAR more fundamental right? Yeah, there is a lot of BS these days, for sure.
But the concept of trying to find someone to sell something you made too cannot be banned. Unless you have a solution to the entire concept of "selling" anything, and turn society into one without needs?
It's 5000 BC and I just made a pot with a lip that pours water easier. I tell someone about this in hopes they might want one too so i can survive on my work <----- that's advertising.
It's 2000 BC and I discovered a new spice and am trying to sell it for cooking. I demonstrate how it smells <----- that's advertising.
....etc Apply this to almost everything anyone has made that they try to sell to someone else. They advertise and market it.
right now, your own post, marketing what you might do as president.... Is a form of marketing.
It's deeply engrained in every single society, and has been for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years. It's a fundamental concept for humans and humans society.
Would @[email protected] please share your thoughts on the response from @[email protected]?
Of course if these ideas were ever put into practice, they'd require the establishment of definitions, scope, parameters, exceptions, consequences, etc.
I think a lot of us understand the spirit of the OP, and you're showing us you aren't on the same page or even opened the book.
Sure, if the offered idea was to abolish every philosophically tangential advertisment, then you'll be the advertisor of reason when we advertise bans on flowers' colors because they advertise to pollinators, or bans on babies' cries because they're advertising their want of nourishment.