As much as I hate advertising and have many issues with it, I do think this paid for information network in its many forms exists because it provides a positive ROI and is a value add to the economy, it helps products and services reach users faster, improve productivity and facilitate trade

Speaking for myself I'd be so happy. It would be like that Simpsons depiction of a world without lawyers. When I was a child I watched as a commercial break would appear on TV during whatever show we were watching, with the volume significantly higher than the audio level of the show, my father would leap for the remote control in order to mute the ads throughout their break. He would then go on to vocalise his utter disdain for ads, which is something I took from him. It wouldnt' be so bad if they weren't a) so loud and a) so shit, so uninspired.

These days I live a relatively ad-free existence, I don't have a TV, I don't have ads in my youtube (thank you Brave on iOS and ublock origin on desktop), and I pay for Spotify premium which is the only other place they can really get me. I still hate ads though. And I still see them, though these days it is as news articles, from the Daily Telegraph right through to the Economist.

Anyway, this is a good opportunity to plug my favorite documentary of all time, 'The Century of Self' which is all about the birth of the advertising industry. Too much content to consume all at once, but fascinating stuff that is well worth the time to take in, and sadly still extremely relevant: hhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

We can't. As long as people are able to communicate, advertising methods will constantly emerge.

Parts of NK looks kinda cool and brutalist without billboards.

I've thought this for years. The only case I can really think of where a quality product would need to be advertised would be in a market that has an established go-to brand, to the point where people won't even consider an alternative, and need to be informed that one exists. But at the same time, in those markets, that brand has so much advertising money that they can afford to simply snuff out any emerging competition. So there's absolutely no case in which advertising is anything but a means of exploiting people and entrenching monopolies. Nobody learns anything valuable from a Coke ad, but it stops you from thinking about alternative soda brands when you go to the store, which gives Coke more money to buy more ads to get you to buy more Coke. And that's not even mentioning all the wasted time and money that goes into the constant development of anti-adblock technology (see the recent YouTube war on adblock). Think what we could do with that money if we used it for something interesting or helpful, instead of making sure people see yet another ad for fuarrrking Walmart, as if they're not going to skip it the second they can anyway.

Interesting, it's like you knew that just yesterday I was thinking about the history of advertising, and whether we're already living in a dystopia where everyone is subconsciously influenced by megacorporations all the time, even though there are no ads in the sky yet.

We can if we start to build only quality, long life,....aliments, apparels and etc... So it means for the good of people.

It would go underground and you'd get shills on TG etc. spamming you.

policing what people can do with their private property seems like a good and very europeanunionist idea, much better than supporting or bearing the cost of building ads free alternatives or just installing an adblocker /s