But that is exactly the problem: how do you separate the two? Once someone figures out a way to profit from "free speech" the profit motive takes over and infects the whole system. I don't see any way around that without compromising freedom.

I think banning online advertising causing these sites to charge their users for the service would right a lot of wrongs automatically, when the free market can start to kick in and do it's job.

It makes it so Facebook's product becomes online photo sharing, instead of it's current product which is manipulation and addiction.

https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-ad...

Thanks for this link, it was a great read - and compelling.

>I think banning online advertising

So you want to limit speech in the name of protecting free speech?

Limiting corporate speech in the name of protecting individual speech seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals.

Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having.

Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them.

Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise my next show.

Maybe I am an amateur photographer and want volunteer subjects to help hone my craft.

The list goes on and on for potential non-corporate uses of advertising. If we want to treat corporate speech and individual speech differently, I think there is a much more important place to start: Citizens United v. FEC.

In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.

> Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.

That isn't the way it works in the US. There are some restrictions on advertising, but is fundamentally protected speech in the US and therefore can't be banned outright.

Limiting corporate speech seems quite a nice fix to the problem of corporations limiting individual speech

Don't worry, it's only other people's speech.

I think you are somewhat correct here, but I do think there's a solution.

As a sibling says, I think changing social media to where users are the _customers_, and not the _product_, is the answer.

I wrote about doing that here: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/decentralizing-the-internet-... .

Freedom is not absolute and boundless.

> echo chambers, are the very epitome of lack of free speech [...] since members of echo chambers only hear one argument, echo chambers are radicalizing, and they are radicalizing because they don’t have free speech

Thanks, that's actually a really insightful way of looking at the problem.