[baryphonic]

> Its literally manipulation of those who have money to spend them on product they otherwise wouldn't, has absolutely 0 relationship on quality on the product (in extreme cases it goes directly against it).

This is an extremely strong claim. Certainly you'd concede that some ads contain truthful information. Like there exists at least one ad that is true. So then how is it "manipulation" for someone to post that information in a public space?

We jumped from "billboards are ugly" to "ads are categorically evil," and based on some pretty strong assumptions.

> Word of mouth, unbiased reviews (yes, they cost something to keep the interference away but save you tons of money and time down the line).

Okay, so how do you get the first person to buy your product if advertising is illegal? The base case would seem to require it. Same goes for "independent reviews." How do you find the independent reviewer? And this is ignoring getting a critical mass of customers for word of mouth to even work.

[latexr]

> This is an extremely strong claim. Certainly you'd concede that some ads contain truthful information. Like there exists at least one ad that is true.

Conversely, I find this a weak claim. If most major uses of something are negative, one minor positive use does not trump the negative.

And even if a billboard is 100% factual, that does not necessarily means it’s a net positive to have constant visual pollution for something you may not even buy.