I mean.......do we want to tear it down?

Pretty sure we do.

Some things are for you, other things are NOT for you. Letting both exist is an option.

So you agree it's good Fortnite now exists on iOS? Apple users get more options?

Don't listen to OP's bullshit.

They work for big clock. They're trying to convince you 12 hour clock is useless so they can sell you double the clock.

Adding an “are you gay?” quiz to the list of inappropriate ads shown to children immediately makes me question the researcher biases and methodology.

Now I'm questioning your biases.

There's nothing wrong or inappropriate with discussing sexuality/homosexuality with your kids but it absolutely is inappropriate for advertisers to try to target children's insecurities with "are you gay?" tests.

And these are not actual "tests". They're malware. You click on the "test" and a million porn pop ups will open and it starts asking for your email and phone number.

Kids should not be exposed to these. Hell, adults shouldn't even be.

I don't think spam pop ups need you defending its right to scam children.

How many ads related to heterosexuality were classified as appropriate?

All of them I'd hope. Those gross underwear ads, porn ads, etc. Kids should not be exposed to sexual advertisements over the internet.

It seems like you're trying to pull a narrative out of thin air to imply the researchers are homophobic?

Ah yes, the Lost-likes.

Manifest, Fast Forward, Continuum, Revolution, Terra Nova... loved them all. All of them canceled.

Idk I feel like it could have ended a little earlier than that.

we just live in the least bad times in all history.

This argument worked in 1990 and maybe even 2000.

It does not work for 2010 or 2020. The "least bad time" in all history has come and past.

There too was a time when Romans lived in the least bad time in all history, and then it took another 400 years to get back to those levels. Read the room. The future is of collapse, not prosperity.

Why do you think they pretty much all end up overdosing, unaliving themselves

I think a huge part of the reason suicidal people feel so alone is because society absolutely refuses to talk about it.

If you choose to self censor to make your content more friendly to advertisers while robbing vulnerable suicidal people of the language they need to be taken seriously, of course people are going to end up "unaliving" themselves because of it.

Imagine trying to explain you're suicidal to a friend who isn't even capable of hearing the word "suicide".

Abuse isn't the solution to miseducation.

I can't even imagine translating something like "chat, am I cooked?" to my grandma.

"Hey folks, am I in trouble?"

As someone brand new to Lemmy I'm now learning a lot of horrible new info on myself based on arbitrarily signing up for a random instance.

I didn't realize I was supposed to psychically know about lemmy lore before ever using it.

That'd be great, but the "how" is a much harder question.

As with the implementation of any obvious law, of course.

What counts as advertising? Because there's a reason Google, Meta, etc. have their fingers in so many different industries: every single thing that gets attention could be leveraged for advertising, even the act of suppressing mentions of competitors.

Sure, maybe that's an interesting question.

After all television commercials and magazine inserts and pop up ads and billboards are gone we can start debating the nuance of where exactly the line is drawn.

Should I be able to say "X product has been great, I recommend it!" Only if I'm not being paid, you say?

Correct!

How could you possibly know?

You would have to report that income on your taxes and if you ever get audited and that was a substantial amount of your income they will find out and go after the major players who are profiting off it illegally at tax time.

Think about gambling or alcohol. How do we know you aren't selling unlicensed alcohol or running an unlicensed casino? We still have laws despite the uncertainty.

As discussed in the article, "propaganda" is illegal. So any discussion about how terrible trump is would also be illegal.

I feel like you're confused about the difference between speech and propaganda. Discussion about Trump isn't propaganda.

I know we currently do not, but it is possible to treat an individual and a business/corporation differently.

It is possible to hold an organizations speech to different standards than an individual.

The discussion of outlawing propaganda doesn't have to have anything to do with your individual ability to express your opinion up until the point you try to organize and artificially broadcast that speech wider than you could on your own.

Do people read this and fail to realize that the "calling everyone I disagree with is a Nazi" rhetoric is the exact same thing?

Like how Elon can do a full Nazi salute multiple times but then throw out some rhetoric about how "they call everyone Nazis" and everyone just buys it?

Yeah I can see how they're similar.