>Advertising allows for someone to educate you that products exist that you’re not aware of

This thin edge of a wedge doesn't justify more than the tiniest fraction of what the advertising industry does.

You don't need to hold onto these stock answers for quieting cognitive dissonance. I've found it a huge mental relief to stop lying to myself and just admit to anyone who asks that I'm morally complicit in abusing the worlds collective psyche for money.

If it's super important to me, I'll actively look for it.

Opt-in advertising is another option, I have no problem receiving advertising I've specifically agreed to receive.

There's a fundamental conflict of interest here in relying on the competitors of products you currently use to educate you on why their products are better aligned to your preferences.

If this is important, subscribe to something like Consumer Reports or join a community group of environmentally concerned citizens who share recommendations with each other, which I suppose will work until the group members start getting sponsored by vendors to give paid recommendations.

Outside of that, the tried and true age old method is trusted third parties. Friends, family, people you share hobbies with and have known for a long time, will give word of mouth recommendations when they know you're interesting in something and have knowledge of products you don't. It's like Ask Hacker News, but instead of asking random anonymous people on a website, ask people you know.

Governed advertising and education channels would be an answer to this

Let’s experiment then, and go for a couple years where all advertising is banned. Then we can regroup and decide if our needs are still being met without ads.

I see the environmentally friendly alternative on the shelf next to the Tide, where are you buying your detergent that alternatives are not apparent?