I'm not opposed to this but it strikes me as somewhat weak - if you think something is bad enough to ban visibility of it, why not just go all the way and ban the thing itself. Same with smoking, alcohol, etc.
Of course, prohibition doesn't have a terribly successful history but the whole approach seems odd and inconsistent to me.
I guess the rationale is a pragmatic de-normalising of toxic and addictive but currently fully normalised foods and substances over the long term.
Is this a serious question? Are you talking about voting for politicians? Anyone can start as many corporations as they want.
Also corporations have roughly 100 million shares and anyone can buy a single share, so your formula would give one corporation more votes than the number of people who participated in the 2016 US election.
Do you really think corporations are under represented in the political process?
Because people won't accept outright bans for things that are popular. Change happens through a build up. You start small and keep moving the border of what people can accept until one day you get your desired effect. The slippery slope is essentially how policy is made.
Banning outright vs removing ads is an entirely different ballpark. Adults should have autonomy over their body so long as it does not infringe on others. It's not up to authorities to decide whether individuals trade long term health for short term enjoyment.
It certainly infringes on others in any country with a publicly funded health care system. The individual's bodily abuse is paid for by everybody else.
Of course, prohibition doesn't have a terribly successful history but the whole approach seems odd and inconsistent to me.
I guess the rationale is a pragmatic de-normalising of toxic and addictive but currently fully normalised foods and substances over the long term.