Even if it isn't psychologically harmful, it is still an annoying distraction in my daily work.

We should confine advertising to a sandbox which users can visit when they feel like it. Then everybody can be happy, not just advertisers.

Do you think that would differ functionally from banning advertising? I would never visit the sandbox ever, literally.

I don't know. But at least it would stop every single argument advertisers have in favor of advertising.

The sandbox could even be made so that consumers can fill in their personal information, so that advertisers can learn more about consumers without even tracking them. That would be an advantage for advertisers and also for consumers because they can be selective about the information they provide.

And of course advertisers will try to lure people into the sandbox with discounts etc, so we should punish any discrimination between consumers who do and consumers who don't visit the sandbox.

Sounds similar to what Brave browser wants to do

Might as well describe desire itself as being psychologically harmful, then. Most people don’t subscribe to the Buddhist point of view, though.

You take two leaps here that don't follow:

OP proposed that advertising is psychologically manipulating people into believing their lives are incomplete and asked whether that is a harm. You conflated this manipulation with built-in desires; it is not that.

By analogy, it is as though OP argued that deliberately withholding food from prisoners to cause them distress from hunger is a harm and you are countering that OP may as well describe hunger itself as harmful.

> Most people don’t subscribe to the Buddhist point of view, though.

Buddhism does not consider desires an inherently harmful. Being captured by desires and constantly craving can be, but that's not the same as the mere existence of desires that can arise.

Does categorizing something as harmful depend on the agent? Shouldn’t the harm exist quite apart from whether or not someone deliberately inflicted it, and regardless of their motivations?

Perhaps you’re reading more into the original comment than I am, but what I took exception with was the notion that the type of emotions aroused by most ads are harmful. I don’t think it’s comparable with withholding food, in either the level of control or the magnitude.

Yes, you are right that desire is harmful. Not only Buddhism but most world religions address the harm of desire. But the argument about advertising is that it plays on our desires, for commercial gain. And then FB marshals other issues we face to feed us advertising, for their commercial gain. It's just a matter of following the money.

Exactly. If you're in denial about the purpose of advertising, then Facebook looks like a company that happens to have some harmful aspects. Whereas if you reject advertising as an assault on consciousness, then what they're being criticized for is merely the latest evolution of advertising - manipulation is the entire goal.