Anytime someone exchanges cash, goods, or services to promote a product or service, and then repeat this inspection up the chain of shell companies!

> Is kid playing with fancy toys is an ad?

not enough context, maybe

> Is product placement in movie an ad?

yes, clearly

> How and who will determine if this is and ad or not?

Probably some corporate compliance drones and underfunded government stooges.

Doesn't that include most children-directed media, as it inevitably ends up being an ad for related merchandise?

Perhaps, and I'm fine with that. Children's media shouldn't be funded by corporate advertising directed at the children, period. I don't care what kind of sledgehammer that takes to the ad industry, I care about the children's well-being.

Next, let's ban all advertising, is what I'm thinking.

I like to play the Pokemon card game with my son. Yes - his interest in that corporate franchise leads us to some spending, but I don't find that excessive for the benefit we get from it, which goes beyond fun, as he learns strategy, focus, pattern application, counting etc. I don't think my son would be better off without that in his life. I also don't find it unreasonable for the corporation to profit of the product they provide.

How does banning advertising, even all advertising, prevent the company from making Pokemon card games? I assume you mean the mobile game, which is very predatory with microtransactions and such (check their recent price increases for shit you can use to win the game). I would be fine with that particular type of system ("freemium", "loot boxes", "pay to win") being banned and eliminated from existence. Pokemon existed long before all of the current bullshit and something similar will be around even without all the ad-driven nonsense.

I have to go to sleep, but I'm militant in my hate for advertising. I would burn the entire idea of advertising to cinders.

As I said earlier, almost all media directed at children aims to create a brand loyalty and will try to convince them to buy more. In this case I'm talking about the actual card game - it's good and features cute pretend animals, thus it makes children want related merchandise.

Moreover, Pokemon was never immune to that. The very first game already introduced the mechanic where you couldn't actually get all the creatures, which was one of the goals. In order to do that, you had to trade with friends that happened to buy a different color version. That's great, because it created engagement and communities around the game, but it's also clearly a marketing ploy.

If you fail to see this in that case, what about The Lego Movie? It's was made to make Lego relevant with the next generation of kids. It's also a good movie. And Lego sets are not bad toys to have.

It's simply not black and white and there's a big difference between Studio Ghibli selling Totoro merch and placing unhealthy snacks at a 5 year old eye level in a checkout aisle.

There is nuance to this, sure, but I’m open to blowing it all up and seeing what emerges. Good thing I’m not the dictatorial ruler of America, I guess.

I just realized that banning blatant advertisement may be one of the most effective measures to help slow down the reckless consumption of natural resources

Imagine if people didn't think they needed 27 hilarious t-shirts they'll never wear or wear once, a tool to cut an apple into slices (plus one for all the other fruits and veg), plastic bags for everything they pack for their kids, toys that will go on the pile of other toys, a new phone and car each year, 137 pairs of sneakers, etc.

Not to mention no longer getting ear-and-eye-fucked with billboards, pop-ups, required logins, and product placements in media! Oh man, I would (almost) give up my only kid to have this dream come to fruition!

Sounds like a utopia to me

you had me on your side, but then you came for a tool to cut apples and now you have mortal enemy. i will defend a right to ikea apple cutter with all my might and will soread the word about it as far as possible.

no, really. its a very convenient and often used tool in my home.

Well, let's meet in the middle and say they should make stronger apple cutters (apple core-ers?), with stainless steel or something, that could be passed down for generations, and doesn't shed microplastics in the trash when it breaks :)

> not enough context, maybe > Probably some corporate compliance drones and underfunded government stooges.

Youtube alone has 720,000 hours of fresh video content per day Tiktok must have less number of hours but more Videos per day. Add Instagram, facebook, Twitter and it's impossible for anyone to verify this manually so in the end how is the platform supposed to decide what to show and what not where the "not enough context, maybe" is the most common answer?

> Is product placement in movie an ad? > yes, clearly

not so clearly even in this case. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w, a very nice recap of what an ad is.

That’s the platforms problem, not ours. If they can’t validate the content then they’ll have to scale back to an amount they can.

"did the company selling the thing pay for any part of it" seems like a good enough place to start.

Even that isn't as clear-cut as it seems. It isn't just the company that you need to include.

Does your company produce ads for the company that produces Proprietary Toy and get money if they sell more products? Does your company supply batteries for Battery Operated Proprietary Toy? Does your store sell either Proprietary Toy?

And so on.

It really is though.

> Does your company produce ads

There it is, don't do that.

All these other questions are also just "yes." You're looking for nuance where there isn't any. Sponsorship is ads, product placement is ads, giving free product to influencer to review is ads. There are certainly edge cases some of them likely to be thorny but none of the things either of us has mentioned so far are them.

I think there’s absolutely nuance here and pretending “make it illegal for kids to see ads” is a simple or even attainable solution is a bit naive I think.

What about product placement? Nearly every movie in Hollywood from the past 40 years has some level of product placement, so under this new law we’ll either go back and edit it out or slap an R rating on it? How about arena ads or billboards? Special AR headsets for teens which will block ads from sight? It’s a silly hypothetical, of course, but you did just say that it’s a hypothetical without nuance.

I think it’s easier to imagine a world where advertising is outlaws entirely than one where we specifically shield it only for those underage.

On further reflection it may effectively ban advertising completely and this makes me like the idea even more.

I’d be on board with that!

Aren't there already legal definitins for adverts? They're regulated today.

Edit: In the UK advertising regulations are handled by the Advertising Standards Authority who already have rules specific to advertising to children.

https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/advertising-cod...

Problem with the ASA is that they can only react to advertising that's out there and by the time they do, the campaign is usually done.

I didn't mean to suggest the issues were already solved, only that there's already precedent for defining advertising in law as well as regulating adverts aimed at children.

Probably yes, so movies for kids should not have them I guess.

Not a problem. This question has already been asked and is settled.

Programmers tend get caught up with definitions and "loopholes". Laws don't care.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1494:_Insurance

To be generous to the OP, they may not be looking for "hacks" or "loopholes" but rather clarity. Vague laws tend to be bad laws.