Anything wie usually consider an ad/sponsored content/boosted content. That includes ad banners, video sponsors, boosted posts, billboards, etc. Really any way that a third party pays some organization to put certain content on their space (be it physical or digital) to be seen by people who are probably there for other reasons than to see that content.
An exact definition fortunately isn't necessary, since our legal system is well adapted to deal with terms that are difficult to define.
> Must all information be paid for by the audience?
Other monetization paths are still possible. E.g. some SaaS orgs could still run blogs to gain mind share, as they do now.
Hopefully most information will be paid for by the audience though.
> I worry that innovators and small businesses won’t be able to get their message out efficiently.
If ads are no longer a thing, people will find other means to get information.
You mentioned in another comment that you like ads in newspapers telling you about some local stores and events. If the readers are genuinely interested in this, the newspaper can still put that information there. Just instead of the highest bidder, they'll put the ones that are genuinely interesting.
Of course, if your product is not worth reading about, it will suddenly be much more difficult to promote it. In my opinion, that is a good thing.
Thank you. You listed concrete examples of things you would ban and you stated a general definition. It sounds like a terrible kind of regime, stripped of the freedom of speech and loaded with arbitrary decisions about what the audience probably wanted to see, resulting in an even more opaque and corrupt flow of information. Nope, no thanks.
I think the problem you have with ads is a you problem.
> It sounds like a terrible kind of regime, stripped of the freedom of speech [...]
I agree that this would be a significant restriction on speech. I think it'd be worth it, especially since paying someone to show your opinion isn't necessary for political discourse, but I understand the caution.
> I think the problem you have with ads is a you problem.
That I very much disagree with.
Ads not just waste billions of dollars on producing content that is so bad you literally pay people to watch it, they also degrade the business model of large parts of the industry. Because of the ad-based business model, Google doesn't show you the best results, Meta tries to get you addicted, YouTube prevents you from swearing and discussing certain political content (a restriction on speech), everyone tries to track you, etc.
I believe that if all these companies' customers were their users, there would be a societal shift.
Anything wie usually consider an ad/sponsored content/boosted content. That includes ad banners, video sponsors, boosted posts, billboards, etc. Really any way that a third party pays some organization to put certain content on their space (be it physical or digital) to be seen by people who are probably there for other reasons than to see that content.
An exact definition fortunately isn't necessary, since our legal system is well adapted to deal with terms that are difficult to define.
> Must all information be paid for by the audience?
Other monetization paths are still possible. E.g. some SaaS orgs could still run blogs to gain mind share, as they do now.
Hopefully most information will be paid for by the audience though.
> I worry that innovators and small businesses won’t be able to get their message out efficiently.
If ads are no longer a thing, people will find other means to get information.
You mentioned in another comment that you like ads in newspapers telling you about some local stores and events. If the readers are genuinely interested in this, the newspaper can still put that information there. Just instead of the highest bidder, they'll put the ones that are genuinely interesting.
Of course, if your product is not worth reading about, it will suddenly be much more difficult to promote it. In my opinion, that is a good thing.