In elaborate terms: you have the ability to change any one of the protocols, specifications, designs or standards of the above at their proposal stage or before their mass adoption. You may choose to modify or reject an existing one or create one by yourself.
Some users and I would have common ideas in mind, however I would love to see some esoteric ideas as well.
Regulatory: Ban advertising.
All of the worst elements of the internet are ad supported. There would be no downside.
I’ve said this for years, but not about technology. Just a complete worldwide ban.
Provide yellow pages type of thing you can look up businesses in, companies can “advertise” on their entry, with a separate resource to look up information and data about them.
Throw in word of mouth, and that’s it. Free market determines everything else. Also, no logos on any product. The products can’t become the advertisement either.
But if take this rule back to like the (19)00s, so we just head off radio and TV commercials before the get go.
Maybe this prevents capitalism from becoming what it is in the first place. The main thing is presenting objective facts alongside the ads, so people don’t just buy something because “it said it was the best”. (Maybe that could extend to preventing people from believing something because “it said it was true” as well >_>)
You’d need to still have a whitelist, so putting the name of your store on the front of the store or telling a friend about a cool new thing you bought is allowed. But yes.
In a similar vein, letting websites render whatever they can imagine has proven ripe for abuse. Basic HTML is a kind of whitelist of it’s own.
The best definition I have come up with so far is to ban ‘Party A compensating party B via money, goods, or services for displaying and/or broadcasting media to party C, in particular and/or in general, without party C’s specific consent and request.’ The only exception might be to allow it for companies that both A. have an annualized revenue less than 10x the median wage, and B. are not making a profit. That would be just to allow small businesses to get the word out at the start but would cut off anything getting to the point where it should be self-sustaining.
So you could advertise on your own platform as much as you want? Billboards, sign spinners, flyers, door-to-door sales.
It would kill surveillance capitalism as we know it, I guess, but it seems like if you’re killing advertising you might as well go all the way.
Sort of.
Billboards are not owned by stores. They are owned by marketers and rented to advertisers. An additional element may be needed to require ‘own space’ advertising to only advertise products and/or services available at that location. (i.e. within ~100meters)
Sign spinners are being paid to display their sign. They’re gone.
Flyers are not delivered with explicit consent and request. They’re gone.
Door-to-door is tougher to classify because it has variance in form, but probably would be allowed on the condition that the first thing the potential customer sees is a person requesting consent and not some piece of media.
Also, I think I’d have to simplify the start to ‘issuing or accepting payment’ rather than targeting a single party. Advertisers and marketers should both face punishment.