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

You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

bearbin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 633 posts

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#251

Post by itisit »

blackhaz wrote: post #234
DarylZero wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? That's what Banksy does and says "yes" to. > No, that would be vandalism. So what? That's just a word. > As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. LOL, but why "must we"? You have no reasoning, no justification.

It's not just a word, it's a law, from UK's Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we mus…

> If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.

But in the case of vandalizing advertisements, breaking the law is a risk some of us are gleefully willing to take.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#252

Post by DarylZero »

jtbayly wrote: post #119
noahbradley wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found you can often mute those screens if you press one of the buttons beside the screen. Apparently it's different depending on the machine, so just mash them all I guess.

I avoid them too, and I’ve never found one where pressing any buttons mutes it.

Try pouring water into the speaker.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#253

Post by shakow »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #122
shakow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. It's like if the citizens of a surveillance state complained if civilian-dressed informants had to carry a big ugly sign. Sure, the sign is ugly and everywhere; but maybe the actual problem is that there are so many informants that you have to see so many signs, rather than their signs being ugly. Shoot the actual problem (i.e. the dark patterns and malicious complia…

We already knew cookies were being used everywhere. I dont need to be told the same thing 100000 times because it makes some people feel better and altruistic. It didn't bring any benefits and has wasted excessive amounts of my time.

*tracking cookies

First-party, non-tracking cookies do not require a cookie banner.

I'm always flabbergaste how good the propaganda machines of ads agencies is that people are actively fighting protective measure on their behalf. Nihil novi sub sole I guess, but it's fascinating to see this process happen first hand.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#254

Post by Kaze404 »

ghusbands wrote: post #222
Kaze404 wrote: post #170

Outside of my office's window I can see a billboard about 2 blocks away from my apartment. For about 30 minutes every couple of hours it flashes red, blue, white and purple at about 3 different colors per second, with the following text in the middle: "You should advertise here!" It honestly blows my mind how someone can look at it and think it's a good idea, instead of how absurd that someone is allowed to put up a…

If it is three times per second, it's unlikely to induce seizures in those with photosensitive epilepsy. Though, depending on where you live, there may still be rules against it (some places set the limit at 2Hz), so it may be worth reporting it. Flashing signs like that are still very rude, though.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. My point is that it's fast, but I don't know how fast.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#255

Post by tomjen3 »

jyu wrote: post #55
smarx007 wrote: post #7

But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day. There is no analogy to interstitial pages with ads like in Forbes some time ago with the button Continue to your article: it would be infuriating if you had to view an ad before being able to use the subway ticketing system. You also don’t have ads on at the airport timetable screen. You don’t have pinkertons following you to learn your habits and sho…

Have you run into the IRL pop up ads? People walking in front of you, interrupting your UX for a quick "5 min conversation" about their chosen cause? These pesky ads get through my blockers no matter how often I update my filters.

I actually find those pretty easy to block, by just not engaging with them at all. Being polite is only for gentlefolk, riff-raff have no requirement for it.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#256

Post by shmageggy »

jtbayly wrote: post #110
blackhaz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they do. You have to mentally process the incoming data first, then discard it. It's a waste of attention, especially with mind-catching ads you can't figure out immediately. Sometimes they are as blocking as browser pop-ups, e.g.: logotypes (or even full ads) displayed before a responsive UI is shown to you, duty-free zones in the airports, and so on. I am pretty sure we will soon have real-life targeted billboa…

Quoted post unavailable.

Another difference not mentioned by sibling comments is that ads are purchased. They are necessarily the domain of the well-funded and therefore already-powerful, and whose purpose is to typically to enhance their purchasers wealth or power. They are a tool for inequality.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#257

Post by jjulius »

323 wrote: post #138
Miner49er wrote: post #116

Reminds me of this Banksy quote: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most…

> Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. Funnily enough, you can say the same thing about Bansky's art: > An artist who defaced several works of famed graffiti artist Banksy has been charged with the cri…

Your TMZ article is about the Los Angeles DA filing a lawsuit on behalf of the property owners who lost value on their property when Banksy's work was defaced. It doesn't appear that Banksy, himself, is involved with the lawsuit at all.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#258

Post by jventura »

Symbiote wrote: post #210
throwawaycities wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like perfectly curated marketing. But I do admit I am outraged when a row of stupid fucking scooters blocks my entire running path, when it’s clearly a location no one would ever rent a scooter, rather they are there to deliberately block the path for no other purpose than obnoxious exposure of their brand. I’d love for there to be DAOs to combat those scooter companies, say for example by blocking the executiv…

Copenhagen residents became sufficiently outraged that hire scooters were banned from the city centre. https://1www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/e-scooters-allowed-back...

Fixed url: https://www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/e-scooters-allowed-back-...

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#259

Post by ThunderSizzle »

shakow wrote: post #253
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already knew cookies were being used everywhere. I dont need to be told the same thing 100000 times because it makes some people feel better and altruistic. It didn't bring any benefits and has wasted excessive amounts of my time.

*tracking cookies First-party, non-tracking cookies do not require a cookie banner. I'm always flabbergaste how good the propaganda machines of ads agencies is that people are actively fighting protective measure on their behalf. Nihil novi sub sole I guess, but it's fascinating to see this process happen first hand.

If it took a banner for you to realize people used Google analytics or similar services, then the banner isn't helping you avoid it.

You should've been running a blocker already. I run third party blockers as much as possible, but these banners are just excessive and useless.

Post reply on HN