The blog post "What if we made advertising illegal?" explores the potential societal benefits of a world without advertising. It argues that advertising manipulates consumers, fuels overconsumption and unsustainable growth, promotes harmful products, and pollutes public spaces and our minds. By eliminating advertising, the author suggests we could reclaim public space, reduce consumption and waste, foster more meaningful cultural production, and encourage healthier lifestyles. This shift would necessitate new funding models for media and cultural institutions, potentially leading to more diverse and democratic forms of content creation.
The original poster is seeking venture capital funds that prioritize ethical considerations alongside financial returns. They are specifically interested in funds that actively avoid investing in companies contributing to societal harms like environmental damage, exploitation, or addiction. They're looking for recommendations of VCs with a demonstrably strong commitment to ethical investing, potentially including impact investing funds or those with publicly stated ethical guidelines.
The Hacker News comments on "Ask HN: Ethical VC Funds?" express skepticism about the existence of truly "ethical" VCs. Many commenters argue that the fundamental nature of venture capital, which seeks maximum returns, is inherently at odds with ethical considerations. Some suggest that impact investing might be a closer fit for the OP's goals, while others point out the difficulty of defining "ethical" in a universally accepted way. Several commenters mention specific funds or strategies that incorporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors, but acknowledge that these are often more about risk mitigation and public image than genuine ethical concerns. A few commenters offer more cynical takes, suggesting that "ethical VC" is primarily a marketing tactic. Overall, the consensus leans towards pragmatism, with many suggesting the OP focus on finding VCs whose values align with their own, rather than searching for a mythical perfectly ethical fund.
The small town of Seneca, Kansas, was ripped apart by a cryptocurrency scam orchestrated by local banker Ashley McFarland. McFarland convinced numerous residents, many elderly and financially vulnerable, to invest in her purportedly lucrative cryptocurrency mining operation, promising astronomical returns. Instead, she siphoned off millions, funding a lavish lifestyle and covering previous losses. As the scheme unraveled, trust eroded within the community, friendships fractured, and families faced financial ruin. The scam exposed the allure of get-rich-quick schemes in struggling rural areas and the devastating consequences of misplaced trust, leaving Seneca grappling with its aftermath.
HN commenters largely discuss the social dynamics of the scam described in the NYT article, with some focusing on the technical aspects. Several express sympathy for the victims, highlighting the deceptive nature of the scam and the difficulty of recognizing it. Some commenters debate the role of greed and the allure of "easy money" in making people vulnerable. Others analyze the technical mechanics of the scam, pointing out the usage of shell corporations and the movement of funds through different accounts to obfuscate the trail. A few commenters criticize the NYT article for its length and writing style, suggesting it could have been more concise. There's also discussion about the broader implications for cryptocurrency regulation and the need for better investor education. Finally, some skepticism is expressed towards the victims' claims of innocence, with some commenters speculating about their potential complicity.
Summary of Comments ( 1042 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
HN users generally support the idea of banning or heavily regulating advertising, citing its manipulative nature, negative impact on mental health, contribution to consumerism, and distortion of media. Some propose alternative funding models for media and other services, such as subscriptions, micropayments, or public funding. Several commenters acknowledge the difficulty of implementing such a ban, particularly given the entrenched power of the advertising industry and the potential for black markets. A few dissenting voices argue that advertising plays a vital role in informing consumers and supporting free services, and that a ban would be overly restrictive and harmful to the economy. Several discuss the potential unintended consequences of such a drastic measure.
The Hacker News post "What if we made advertising illegal?" generated a lively discussion with a variety of perspectives on the potential impacts of such a ban. Several commenters explored the practical implications and unintended consequences.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the definition of "advertising" and the difficulty of drawing a clear line. Commenters debated whether things like movie trailers, book reviews, or even open-source project announcements would be considered advertising under a hypothetical ban. This led to concerns about censorship and restrictions on free speech. Some suggested that a ban might be too broad and could stifle innovation and the spread of information. Others proposed narrower definitions focused on manipulative or misleading advertising practices.
Another key theme was the potential impact on the funding of free services. Many commenters pointed out that advertising revenue supports many websites, apps, and other services that people rely on. They questioned how these services would be funded in the absence of advertising, with suggestions ranging from subscriptions and donations to government funding. Some expressed skepticism about the viability of these alternatives, particularly for smaller or niche platforms.
Several commenters discussed the potential benefits of an ad-free world, such as reduced consumerism, less cluttered online experiences, and decreased exposure to potentially harmful or misleading information. However, others argued that advertising plays a valuable role in informing consumers about products and services and driving competition.
Some commenters also explored historical examples of advertising bans or restrictions, such as the ban on tobacco advertising. They debated the effectiveness of these measures and their relevance to a broader advertising ban.
A few comments touched on the potential for black markets and other unintended consequences, such as the rise of influencer marketing or other forms of disguised advertising.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and nuanced understanding of the role of advertising in society. While some expressed support for a ban, many others raised concerns about its feasibility and potential negative consequences. The discussion highlighted the need for careful consideration of the definition of advertising and the potential impacts on various stakeholders, including consumers, businesses, and the media.