> All you said was that selfish motivation == misinformation
No I didn't, even according to you:
> You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy
Correct. Which is true if the thing they say you should buy, you should not in fact buy.
> that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly
You don't like that definition because you don't think that pressuring someone to buy something, when you have a vested interest in that thing selling, is inherently wrong. Not everyone has to have the same opinions about business rights and ethics as you.
> You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like.
No, you brought that into the conversation:
> I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming"
Before that, we were clearly talking about modern ads, not "someone hawking their wares" as part of "basic commerce", which is obviously far more expansive a discussion, and includes said individual sellers.
> not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation
I am not limiting "misinformation" to only that, I am including that within the umbrella of misinformation, because it is.
Misinformation is simply, "Untrue or incorrect information." You are the one trying to redefine it to exclude common forms of misinformation we're used to navigating.
> I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed.
Not explicitly. What you said was
> "I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not..."
Which is an inherent implication that I do not think it's okay to do so. I do think it's okay, I just can acknowledge that it's usually misinformation. As I said, the issue here is you being unable to reconcile something being misinformation, and that thing still being allowed.
No I didn't, even according to you:
> You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy
Correct. Which is true if the thing they say you should buy, you should not in fact buy.
> that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly
You don't like that definition because you don't think that pressuring someone to buy something, when you have a vested interest in that thing selling, is inherently wrong. Not everyone has to have the same opinions about business rights and ethics as you.
> You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like.
No, you brought that into the conversation:
> I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming"
Before that, we were clearly talking about modern ads, not "someone hawking their wares" as part of "basic commerce", which is obviously far more expansive a discussion, and includes said individual sellers.
> not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation
I am not limiting "misinformation" to only that, I am including that within the umbrella of misinformation, because it is.
Misinformation is simply, "Untrue or incorrect information." You are the one trying to redefine it to exclude common forms of misinformation we're used to navigating.
> I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed.
Not explicitly. What you said was
> "I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not..."
Which is an inherent implication that I do not think it's okay to do so. I do think it's okay, I just can acknowledge that it's usually misinformation. As I said, the issue here is you being unable to reconcile something being misinformation, and that thing still being allowed.