Jurisdiction over attention locates the real issue in marketing and persuasion, which is not whether persuasion happens — persuasion is unavoidable, and a teacher, a friend, and a candidate all persuade. The issue is who holds authority over the receiver’s attention:
The right to signal does not include an unlimited right to occupy another participant’s attention.
The advertiser has standing to make a claim. The participant has standing to control how much access that claim gets. Both are real, and neither cancels the other.
The inversion it forces
It flips the governing question. Today the question is how can we get access to the person? Under the model it becomes under what conditions does this signal legitimately deserve access to this person’s attention? A company has standing to describe its product truthfully; it does not acquire standing over your attention merely because you are statistically likely to buy — your attention remains yours. This is the right to informational quiet applied to commercial signal, and the reason the model can protect discovery without normalizing intrusion. See The Marketing Test.