If advertisments are too annoying, they should not be aired.
Click to vote
10%7 Votes
Strongly Disagree
29%21 Votes
Disagree
15%11 Votes
Undecided
26%19 Votes
Agree
19%14 Votes
Strongly Agree
10%7 Votes
Strongly Disagree
29%21 Votes
Disagree
15%11 Votes
Undecided
26%19 Votes
Agree
19%14 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
10%5 Votes
Strongly Disagree
33%17 Votes
Disagree
14%7 Votes
Undecided
22%11 Votes
Agree
22%11 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I don't think of banning mind manipulation as the same thing as censorship. Would preventing the famous scene in "A Clockwork Orange" be censorship?
In a large part this is because I don't feel that non-existant entities like corporations have rights like individuals do. I know that since the mid-1800s that the courts have not agreed. But then, it took them 200 years to decide that black people could vote without hindrance, too.
I don't say we shouldn't regulate commercials, but I am against banning things for the sole reason that "someone" finds them "annoying". When it comes to banning things on such arbitrary grounds it is a slippery slope to censorship.
Adds that are in any way discriminating, misleading, or for instance selling candy to children should be banned in my opinion.
Oh, I was speaking of banning them completely. If the person who actually made something with his/her own two hands wants to tell me all about it and try and sell me, that's one thing. But for some stranger (and I include famous faces in that--I don't know them, and they don't know me) to try and sell me on behalf of a fictive entity so that more faceless shareholders can increase profits--hey, that isn't freedom of speech, that is propaganda. Corporations DON"T EXIST. They are legal fictions. And, in my book. fictional entities don't have rights, only responsibilities.
I have an amazing capacity to turn off my mind during commercials. I hardly even notice them. When I do notice them, they are mildly annoying. Given my druthers, my TV would edit them out and replace them with photos or videos that I load up myself.
United Kingdom
As far as this question goes: I'm lovin' it.
It's the Real Thing.
If Carlsberg submitted questions, they would probably be the best questions on the site.
Who posted this anyway, maybe it was SGNG, maybe it was Maybelline!
Posting is good for you - it's what your right arm is for! :)
Oh and it seems a question a day helps you work, rest and play - 8 out of 10 cats agree with this!
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAnd who gets to determine what is annoying? I rather determine that for myself so no censorship - not even on "annoying" comercials.
I don't think of banning mind manipulation as the same thing as censorship. Would preventing the famous scene in "A Clockwork Orange" be censorship?
In a large part this is because I don't feel that non-existant entities like corporations have rights like individuals do. I know that since the mid-1800s that the courts have not agreed. But then, it took them 200 years to decide that black people could vote without hindrance, too.
I don't say we shouldn't regulate commercials, but I am against banning things for the sole reason that "someone" finds them "annoying". When it comes to banning things on such arbitrary grounds it is a slippery slope to censorship.
Adds that are in any way discriminating, misleading, or for instance selling candy to children should be banned in my opinion.
Oh, I was speaking of banning them completely. If the person who actually made something with his/her own two hands wants to tell me all about it and try and sell me, that's one thing. But for some stranger (and I include famous faces in that--I don't know them, and they don't know me) to try and sell me on behalf of a fictive entity so that more faceless shareholders can increase profits--hey, that isn't freedom of speech, that is propaganda. Corporations DON"T EXIST. They are legal fictions. And, in my book. fictional entities don't have rights, only responsibilities.
Yeah!!! Because they are ALL too annoying!!!!
I have an amazing capacity to turn off my mind during commercials. I hardly even notice them. When I do notice them, they are mildly annoying. Given my druthers, my TV would edit them out and replace them with photos or videos that I load up myself.