Interesting, using the under-age argument to ban these ads generally - guessing this is how smoking ads where banned - seems like a good technical way to ban them generally to the overall population.

And even if we look just at under-age audiences, a ban for them make sense, since that for a decent-sized portion of teenage boys, sports is an obsession. Having them pummeled by sports-betting ads at an age when they are often exploring new things is probably not a good idea, as it will make betting (and for some of these, betting addiction) a part of their lives while they are young.

Sure, but I think that falls a bit short of what's really at play here. Advertising anything which tugs at our animal weaknesses is unreasonably manipulative. Images of food (especially marketing images, which are photos of inedible objects masquerading as food), ads for sex, drugs, gambling - these are vices for a reason. Humans, generally, are weak to these things. Adults shouldn't really be exposed to these advertisements either.

We're also susceptible to bright colors and certain screen movement patterns and topic sequences, as practical the entire internet industry has figured out and has been using against us with competing degrees of success for about 20 years.

Humans are weak and easy to manipulate, and some more so than others. It seems like the question is always about the degree to which the governments ought to intervene to protect us from each other...and ourselves.

Agreed, it's about the degree of regulation.

And not sure where you sit on this, but for me personally, gambling ads cross a line as gambling has major negative effects to public well-being, especially to those who are the most financially in need.

I'm one of those people who has become convinced that device addiction has ruined the capacity to think or pay attention for an entire generation from the time they were most vulnerable, and we haven't even begun to realize the negative consequences of that. But yeah, gambling ads are bad too.

HN doesn't let me reply to your reply so will reply on your early comment (think too many levels of nesting?). But I agree about your comment on devices, smartphone addiction is having negative impact people's mental health - smartphones are a super-useful tool, but too much screen-time has led to detachment from the real world and depression.

I had a small laugh when I read your comment and imagined legislation for fighting attention-grabbing sites, requiring them to all look like this site.

Want to see an image? Follow a link, sir. It is far too distracting to have it simply be there, between the words, enticing us.

Legislation about plain packaging for other vices, like cigarettes, has been successful in Australia.

The idea was to destroy the 'brand value' and positive associations that cigarette companies have worked hard to build.

It does work, but I dont know that the concept would translate to digital media that well.

Yes I live here and it seems quite successful. Most smokers I see now in my area (not counting vapes) are foreign Asian students who didn't grow up with it.

I don't think it'd work well online for similar reasons, the internet is global, it would just disadvantage local companies for no real gain due to our population. It would have to be a concerted global effort. I think there is quite a bit of overlap with accessibility too (simple and quiet is easier to parse for computers and humans than confusing noise), so maybe a push in that direction.

Sure, there are many other forms of advertising that are irresponsible in the public sphere.

> It seems like the question is always about the degree to which the governments ought to intervene to protect us from each other...and ourselves.

Of course. That's why I defined the degree I was advocating for

Wow, I'm glad I clicked this. Feels kind of like you buried the lede not giving the title: "Subliminal acoustic manipulation of nervous systems"

Is this based on actual science? How effective is this?

> Images of food (especially marketing images, which are photos of inedible objects masquerading as food

I agree with your overall point, but this is incorrect. I'm pretty sure there is already a law that says they cannot have fake food in commercials, at least for restaurants. There have been articles explaining how they take a "stock" hamburger (ok, they call it a "sandwich", technically) and dress it up for the commercial. But the interesting part is that the food photographers are constrained to using only ingredients from the store, they cannot use paint or plastic to represent the food. One of the little details I remember was they would use a brush to draw the ketchup to one side of the bun to make it look like it was liberally applied. It's quite interesting how they achieve the final goal - even though it looks NOTHING like the product that is delivered to the consumer.