Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

French cities trying to ban public adverts

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#61

Post by KozmoNau7 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #22
colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

A general sentiment I see here is that ads should be banned, but what can be done in the US? The First Amendment protects truthful advertisements. In addition, we have the FTC for misleading and lying ads (although their success is not what it should be (case in point: OutBrain and Taboola)). So, what do we do? Further reading on the 1st Amendment and advertising: http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://en.wiki…

Nobody wants ads banned. The problem is that ads are being placed into previously unused places and louder than before. The result is that all companies have to compete with these new obnoxious ads or risk falling behind their competitors that are willing to put ads in distasteful places. In my opinion, the solution is to clearly define a discrete set of spaces for ads and make sure everyone is able to compete on equ…

I have an anarchist streak and am generally wary of government/industry overreach, but even I would support a full ban on all advertising.

In fact, I would go even further and enforce plain packaging and standardized reusable containers.

We waste far too many resources on completely redundant products and specialized branded packaging.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#62

Post by justin66 »

munk-a wrote: post #6
q845712 wrote: post #5

It's kind of an open secret that the city of Santa Barbara (CA, US) has banned several forms of public outdoor advertising: we have no billboards, no promotional posters, no taxi toppers... It's delightful, and very high on my list of reasons why I enjoy living here. Every time I leave I'm reminded how noisy space is when it's filled with advertisements. I wholeheartedly recommend others advocate for similar policies…

Taxi toppers are an interesting one to ban - I suppose the city can simply refuse to license taxis that refuse to sign a contract agreeing to not use toppers but any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV - possibly... I'm not certain how a lawsuit would come down trying to determine if vehicle appearance could be restricted by a state or if that right was…

> any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV

???

The state DMV neither writes nor enforces laws.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#63

Post by TeMPOraL »

CptFribble wrote: post #24

Banning ads would be nice, but that's already old thinking. The growth of the influencer model, advertorials/newsvertising, and individual personality as brand experience means that even if all public ads were banned, brands would just be paying thousands of micro-influencers for IRL mentions, tracked silently through the mic on your phone. When you take the influencer thing to it's logical conclusion (everyone is a…

That's just a reason to also ban "influencing". Few other ways of advertising damage the basic fabric of society - interpersonal trust - as badly as influencers.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

nine_k wrote: post #60
deogeo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume advertising somehow helps the economy, but it is probably the reverse. If business A buys ads, it's competitor B is forced to do the some, or be slowly edged out of the market. Like peacock plumes, ads are mostly a tax that weighs down every business in the area.

But how can businesses may become known? I see that maybe image ads are of the peacock feather type. Informative ads, like a new movie being out in theaters, can actually be net-positive financially, at the expense of the strain on public attention.

> Informative ads, like a new movie being out in theaters, can actually be net-positive financially, at the expense of the strain on public attention.

It would be easy to avoid that strain, by segregating such informative ads into places where people can seek them out on their own. Have advertising be PULL, not PUSH. Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of what the advertising industry wants (and really, what most companies want - everyone is happy with getting a little short-term advantage at the expense of everyone else and their own future).

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#65

Post by TeMPOraL »

mlinksva wrote: post #50

I personally prefer to tax rather than ban, but good on them. What's different about the internet that has some countries trying digital services taxes rather than digital ad bans?

My guess: no obvious immediate hazard + not enough public outrage + lots of money flowing through = countries want to tax it to capture some of that money.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#66

Post by TeMPOraL »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54
lordlic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Incumbents will have more money to spend, chilling the influence of new competitors. Most of the "disruptor" success stories that come to mind started with some variation of "we didn't spend anything on advertising, relying on word of mouth."

> Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Not necessarily. Advertising has diminishing returns -- we know this because companies don't buy unlimited advertising. If every ad dollar was as good as the first (i.e. it generated more than a dollar in profit) then everybody would buy an unlimited amount of advertising so they could make an unlimited profit. At some point you hit satu…

Advertising indeed seems to give an edge to newcomers over the incumbents, but those same "little guys" would need to advertise less if everyone's attention wasn't already saturated by everyone else's ads. Everyone is still wasting money; new players just waste less.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#67

Post by OldGuyInTheClub »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #36
OldGuyInTheClub wrote: post #31

Good on them. In Los Angeles, the tonier the neighborhood the fewer the billboards. The savagery of monster electronic signage and visual barrage increases substantially as one goes into the less affluent locations.

Well, of course. Mental pollution is just another thing poor people are subjected to, while the executives of those same advertising companies live in suburbs without a single billboard in sight.

Definitely true in America's saddle point society. A certain class will always go back to equilibrium no matter the shove, the rest fall off the sides at the slightest touch.

The poorer areas are subjected to architectural punishment, food as unhealthy as it is cheap, lack of investment and services, and pollution of all varieties. I see the "Cloud Minders" from the original Star Trek.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#68

Post by Barrin92 »

oehpr wrote: post #19
sosborn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plain text listing of facts Coca-Cola tastes great! Coca-Cola gives you an extra pep in your step! Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! These are all true statements (the first one is subjective, I'll admit), but I suspect that many believe the effect of plain test listing of facts would only allow the third statement. > Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. Wouldn't a photo of someone drinking a Coke and enjo…

I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.

you don't need any hardcoded rules. When in doubt have a local municipal office or whatever decide whether to take down ads or not based on residential complaints.

Consensus and some common sense and case by case judgement ought to be enough to decide whether ad placement is appropriate.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#69

Post by QuadrupleA »

This is great. For website owners, magazines etc. it's sorta their choice to "pollute" their pages with ads, but out in the world you're polluting the commons, where people have little choice in the matter. It depletes people's ability to have a clear head & freely focus their attention.

Re: French cities trying to ban public adverts

#70

Post by sosborn »

Barrin92 wrote: post #68
oehpr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.

you don't need any hardcoded rules. When in doubt have a local municipal office or whatever decide whether to take down ads or not based on residential complaints. Consensus and some common sense and case by case judgement ought to be enough to decide whether ad placement is appropriate.

This is, of course, the right answer. Unfortunately we are too quick these days to pull out the shotgun when a small razor will do fine.
Post reply on HN