The case for child advertising as inherently unfair
This article argues that child advertising is not inherently unfair. If we adopt an account of fairness according to which the persuasion of defenceless children is unfair, even if harmless, then it looks like all sorts of non-commercial persuasion is also unfair. This includes parents persuading children to eat vegetables, for example. If, on the other hand, harm, or some other negative outcome, is a condition of unfairness, then child advertising would have to carry with it an inherent risk of such a negative outcome. The article considers candidate features of advertising that would explain this risk, concluding that none are enough to ground the unfairness claim.
Is child advertising inherently misleading?
This article is something of a companion to the above article in that it deals with the other common accusation against child advertising: that it is inherently misleading. This article responds to that claim by putting pressure on the analogy on which it rests. Child advertising has been thought to be like disguised advertising aimed at adults, which we can agree is misleading. But adults, I claim, are misled by this because they make assumptions about the nature and purpose of communication that children don't make. Without these assumptions, there is no analogous false belief in the child case that makes it inherently misleading.
Nietzsche’s Cultural Elitism
Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47, no. 1
Cultural Incorporation in Nietzsche’s ‘Free Spirit’ Works