Oddbean

With RFK Jr. taking over as the head of the HHS the big pharma AND big media companies already on the ropes should be scared. Big pharma spent $18 BILLION in advertising last year. The second-largest ad spender by industry. If RFK makes advertising big pharma products illegal, as it already is in 98% of the world, it could be the death blow to mainstream corporate media. https://m.primal.net/MDUi.png

Literally nobody should be advocating against big pharma being allowed to advertise. It is absolutely their money, and they have the freedom of speech, association, and right to contract without government interference. You can hate their products or whatever, fine. But do not join the socialist and communists on infringing ones rights. Bad take Marty, bad take!

Now you are completely straying from the topic of speech and advertising. I am not interested in debating the above, this is a post about freedom of ANY business to advertise. Nothing more, nothing less Have a great day.

Nah man, you have the bad take...too simplistic. Things are so tangled and corrupted, that's going to take fixing so many things to heal...that will take a lot of time. Banning big pharma from advertising is great because it will harm two of the biggest obstacles in the information war...them and big media. Should we allow pedos to advertise for companions, I mean, come on, we can't ban things. This where libertarians become another form of libtard.

There is not tangled or corrupted about it. You are a statist. That's fine, you are entitled to your beliefs. But don't call yourself anything but. You want the government to silence people you don't like. In your case it is incredibly disgusting as you apparently want to silence pharma and use the government to put the media out of business. I believe it's disgusting, tyrannical, and you are no better than progressives who want to ban hate speech. On your silly example, how do you define 'pedo'? What does that even mean for ad space? A dating app? A lewd commercial? Soliciting sex? Someone buying an ad saying they want to have sex with a 10 year old? This would likely be covered as obscene material as define by the supreme Court in multiple cases now, vs free speech rights and possibly a crime in the state. States may very make such rules, as granted in the 10th amendment. Limits? Sure, but very lenient. What about a 16 year old? That's legal consent in the majority of the states. In my state it's 18. Hence why your example doesn't work at the federal level, and they have no such authority anyways. Plus, no reasonable media company big or small would take such an ad and become party to a potential crime. Certainly not a mainstream one.

What about it? They can't lie to you, thats fraud. Malpractice law exists. If that's what you mean? But elsewhere in life, stores get a kick back to sell Pepsi up front, or bud light near the isle, etc... Bartenders and waiters get told to push things, etc . I don't have a problem with that in the slightest However in most all cases, drug makers have the initial patent, there aren't multiple d rugs of the same type being offered at the same time. The question isn't about money, but medicine. If there was 2 drugs, both similar and recommended by the doctor, but one gave the doc a kickback, so be it. You either trust your doctor or you don't. He either prescribed something to fix the ailment or not. Getting a kickback doesn't change the equation.

I don't want any tax dollars going to pharma, or any industry at all, period. Advertising or not. But do you really believe that if advertising was banned unconstitutionally like Marty is advocating for that they would stop getting public money??? Haha, yeah right.

I believe big tobacco should be able to advertise. That doesn't mean they can commit fraud however. But movie product placement, ads, ads with smokers being cool and hip, etc... should absolutely be allowed.

I appreciate this comment. Made me think, and I think I agree. Plenty to be done with wrt to big pharm without resorting to censorship. Top of the list should be; -Removing mandates, (like vax schedules or emergency measures). -Remove liability protections for producers and prescribing doctors. -Establish protocols for proper testing, informed consent, administration, follow-ups, and injury reporting. -Open season on false advertising. -Zero Public Funding Those should be easy. If you want controversial, then consider; -Exempting medical products from patent protection and intellectual property rights.

I agree with your list. However I don't agree in having an FDA at all. I don't believe the federal government has the authority to regulate drug makers, big pharma, etc... They were never granted that authority in the constitution. If people want to amend the constitution to include that, then sure, I'm game. But as of 2024, they are not authorized to do so.

Please explain. How is it good to violate the constitution, and a private company's right to market it products? I am absolutely blown away that there are people on NOSTR who are now advocating for government to silence people who they don't like. This shit is madness.

No. You assumed all that. I read “death blow to mainstream media” and said good. Familiar with the Jocko video? Your reply forced me to read the rest of the nonsense after being accused of advocating. 😂 Thanks for that.

What?! People wired differently? I’m shocked. I commented a single word based abstractly on a single sentence. You typed an entire paragraph based off what you assumed my thoughts were. And then.. we got to have a conversation. 🤷🏼‍♂️

We are one of two countries. The other is Australia I believe. Direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals should be outlawed You shouldn't go into your doctor's office and tell them about some drug you want to be on. That whole industry is fucked. nostr:nevent1qqsd98wjzrr4unpscurwps026s0yc86t0z00elkyf80zdqwy654knlgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygz89azq7200n9hf9gvxhrfjplccpjz4jqug9eva2r0phz74v6fsrcpsgqqqqqqsja0hfz