The counter argument to this is that advertising serves useful discovery for new technologies.

Which is of course 99% bullshit since the vast majority is emotive and manipulative.

But to avoid this you could make advertising regulation 'white list' style. Only text based, only non-emotive descriptions of product function.

I mean take cola, their adverts are largely around the subtext of 'if you drink this you will have more friends, if you do not drink this you will be more lonely.' Of course this is never stated openly it's all in the subtext which given Colas efficient market defying profits seems to be incredibly effective.

> non-emotive descriptions of product function.

This sounds very similar to the rules that non-commercial stations are bound to, per the FCC. Fines can be issued for underwriting spots that contain calls to action, price information, qualitative claims, or are simply too long.[0]

[0] http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/fcc-fines-f...

That's throwing out the baby with the bath water. Advertising serves a modicum of a public good, in that it's informative. If, say, I buy some fabric conditioner and quite like its effects but think it smells too intense, I might change brand. If I see an ad for the old brand saying 'now with a new and improved fragrance', that's genuinely useful information. Perhaps the problem I had with an otherwise satisfactory product is gone.

There's plenty of truly bad advertising out there and it definitely needs stronger regulation, but lets not be overly enthusiastic about it.

> "If I see an ad for the old brand saying 'now with a new and improved fragrance', that's genuinely useful information. Perhaps the problem I had with an otherwise satisfactory product is gone."

If that's the only reason to keep advertising, it can easily be replaced by independent consumer advice, similar to 'Which?' magazine but with a much wider remit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F