Amsterdam bans public adverts for meat and fossil fuels

You could have something like an independent review/consumer information service, and companies pay to submit their products. They are tested by open standards, and blind reviewed by ordinary people. People do need to know random stuff like: what's a good cleaning product to get this limescale off my shower, is this cheaper brand of muesli basically the same as the more expensive one. Then companies can compete on providing value at whatever price point they like. Without all the bullshit, dishonesty, branding and manipulation. That would be much better than the current BS of giving teens eating disorders, propagandizing children into consumerism and scamming people into overpaying for junk they don't need. Advertising is a parasite industry which creates nothing and does a lot of harm, and we all pay for it, the cost is built into the prices of products, the world would be much better if we got rid of it.

People really think ads don't work on them, but will have a bunch of things in thier house that they don't need at all. 

It gets weird. Paid reviews, or reviews of products sent for free are ads, absolutely. But there are occasions where somebody is genuinely impressed by something they bought or acquired and they just want to talk about it - while *technically* it could have the same result as an ad, would that content also count as advertising? Etc

If the AI bubble has taught us anything, it's that once businesses get big enough, consumers aren't their real customers anymore to a large extent. All their growth comes from chasing investors and other businesses which the executive and shareholder classes also have their fingers in, in an entangled spider web of greed. A huge fraction of the economy is huge megacorporations passing the same few piles of cash around to each other.

As a fellow neurodivergent, I recognize this sentiment. I also believe that any product requiring a large marketing budget is overpriced and probably not that good, otherwise it would have sold itself.

They are a business. They are trying to sell a service to an end user. They make money either directly (ad free subscription) or through advertising. If the ads are either blocked or not working on you then they don't want you using their service anyways.

Same. I have ad blocking c*** where ever I can install it.

Yes, it is an odd experience and I have had it several times.

It shouldn't be advertised. And if it exists it just be a mandatory standard entry for like, having paid taxes that year (or other time period).  Conceptually: government yeets a random someone into a position of power periodically.  The vast majority of a truly random selection is *not the wealthy, ruling elite*.  Take the impulsive gambling out of the equation - this is burning the problem from both ends: you're not encouraging that addictive behavior AND you're adjusting the potential-w***** pool away from folks that exhibit said behavior.  Sampling the lower socioeconomic classes for folks to give financial influence might be the best way to effect positive change in their communities. They've lived the problems and opportunities. 

Yes there’s so much evidence we are killing the planet with our overconsumption of meat. You would rather ignore that than make a personal change.

Bad take. No one is getting outraged by trying different foods, but banning advertising for food for omnivores, when we are an omnivore species is a lil rich no? Is it also illegal in the Netherlands to eat non plant based proteins? No? So why nanny state advertisements for it?

You can, the vast majority don't

“Da evil nebulous ‘they’ want us not to eat meat and make bots to tell us that because …. uhhh… reasons!!!!!”

[https://theonion.com/more-realistic-meat-substitute-made-from-soy-raised-in-1819578651/](https://theonion.com/more-realistic-meat-substitute-made-from-soy-raised-in-1819578651/)

I guess you missed the bit about reducing the fossil fuels usage too.

This is what happens when schools fail to teach multiplication.

Feeding plants to animals and then harvesting the animal's meat = less than 30% efficiency of input resources used compared to just eating the plants directly Feeding plants directly to people is way more efficient, and you can eat 0 meat and be healthy. Im vegan and I supplement with vitamin b12 , D , and I drink protein shakes sometimes. im a 16:50 5k runner and weight lifter and didnt notice any difference in my performance.

That's not true at all. Meat is way more expensive and it's already heavily subsidized

As another pointed out, people do not need meat in the quantities that they consume in modern wealthy nations. Most people could probably cut their meat consumption down 80% and still get all the nutrients they needed from it.

> And when did anyone ever claim smoking was *good* for you? Boy you must have not been around before the 90s.

Omnivore doesn't mean that you *should* eat everything, just that you can to survive in the short term.

[https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/12/these-are-the-insane-adverts-that-told-people-smoking-was-good-for-them-7936951/](https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/12/these-are-the-insane-adverts-that-told-people-smoking-was-good-for-them-7936951/) Not all of them fit, but some do.

[I believe peer reviewed research. how many more do you need?](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat)

When I say "that meal," I mean a meal at all, not a particular one. It might change which meal they choose, sure, but who cares? It doesn't keep homeless people from eating, so the existence of homeless people is simply irrelevant. That's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with this.

It's travel modes (that are heavy fossil fuel users - petrol/diesel cars, airlines and cruises specifically mentioned), and meat that are having adverts banned, so the policy is consistent within itself. And in any case a measure being imperfect does not make it dumb with the implication that has that it shouldn't happen.