The goal isn't to eradicate ads, it's to make them cost more so there's overall less of it (or that it's embedded in ways that don't seem like ads).
I'd argue that product placement is less bad than outright attention theft. Because I ignore it or I notice and think less of the content (or in some cases it's like Waynes World where it's a mockery of the product placement which bolsters the content).
And don't tell me advertising is free speech. As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people and have no rights. Like governments, a corporation's powers are defined by law.
Advertising is free speech.
>As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people and have no rights.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion.
>Like governments, a corporation's powers are defined by law.
The law defines corporations as entities with rights, including the right to free speech, and therefore they have an abstract form of personhood for various legal reasons. If corporations had no rights, they would have no right to enter into contracts as a singular entity, nor would they have the right to use, or to be sued as entities.
and how do i know you 're not paid for that comment?
Simple rule: if you accept unlimited liability you get free speech. If you don't you don't.
I don't recall where in the US Constitution free speech is defined as only being granted in proportion to legal liability. I only recall the part where "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging freedom of speech."
I know some on HN hate advertising in all its forms but there's no way around this - you can't make advertising illegal without also essentially making free speech illegal. You can regulate advertising, of course, as you can regulate speech with libel and slander laws, FDA labeling requirements, etc. But you can't ban it outright. And you certainly can't have inalienable, natural rights be contingent upon legal fictions.
And, what about corporations that are people? That is, a small business run by one person, like an Etsy shop?