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

261–270 of 633 posts

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

#261

Post by throwawaycities »

ignoramous wrote: post #181
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…

> I’d love for there to be DAOs to combat those scooter companies, say for example by blocking the executives’ front doors, cars, garages, offices with giant billboards or vending machines. Interesting. I don't think one can legitimise just about anything with DAOs. But DAOs do represent a form of group think, an in-group, a collective, so that's there too. I wonder if GreenPeace / Amnesty / XR / Anti-FA et al have e…

Well crowdfunding makes sense, but as a DAO members could use the token to apply their own adverts on the billboards attached to the scooter executives’ houses, cars and offices. Not sure what type of utility those non-profits could build into a token.

Still I’m not opposed to it being a traditional non-profit, it might be possible to obtain 501(c)(3) tax exemption as a charity under the purpose of “combating community deterioration.”

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

#262

Post by freediver »

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…

There would be noting wrong with ads if they were always opt-in. Even if that included all the privacy-invasive tracking. You want ads, you turn them on.

What is infinitely more invasive are ads that are on by default, that do not give you the choice of not seeing them in the first place. The audacity to push an idea on to you feels like a shovel across the face. If you are lucky you can opt-out (on the web usually with an ad blocker) and in the case of ads in public spaces you are just out of luck.

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

#263

Post by zhoujianfu »

luma wrote: post #99
stevehawk wrote: post #91

I think this will be a whole new issue when AR becomes standard. In fact, it's the whole reason I don't want AR. I just see ads for days coming out of it. Everyone putting little ad starting QR codes (or whatever they settle on) everywhere so every time I turn my head there's a gecko on a coffee table in the random store I'm in trying to sell my car insurance.

Depends on who owns that AR. If I own it, I could replace all the car insurance ads on the road with cute geckos doing adorable things.

Probably via the free GEICO AR app!

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

#265

Post by thepasswordis »

berkes wrote: post #219
duxup wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours Welcome to public spaces? Life involves maybe seeing things, idea, people you don’t like. That’s not inherently bad.

Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? What is allowed and tolerated in that public space is skewed, an unfair. Certainly not balanced.

Because whoever owns the space where they're placing the billboard lets them?

What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house, should they be allowed to change it because it can be seen from the public space?

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

#266

Post by Abroszka »

shakow wrote: post #61
qybaz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank the Lord reality (still) does not have cookie banners.

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…

> I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners.

My main issue with it is that if I disable cookies, then every single time I need to accept it. If I enable cookies then I only need to accept it one time. I think this annoying thing actually reduces security, because people are more likely to just not delete the cookies at the end of the session to avoid this annoying popup. Makes the web totally unusable if you delete the cookies regularly without a plugin to hide the cookie banner.

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

#267

Post by Aerroon »

boomlinde wrote: post #172
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…

> But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day. If I run around you all day shouting expletives at you, you might consider that there's nothing that I do that fundamentally gets in your way for as long as I keep a certain distance. But it will be annoying, exhausting and likely detrimental to your mental health in the long term. There's nothing inherently offensive about advertisement, IMO. Displ…

>If I run around you all day shouting expletives at you, you might consider that there's nothing that I do that fundamentally gets in your way for as long as I keep a certain distance. But it will be annoying, exhausting and likely detrimental to your mental health in the long term.

But that's different. Ads in real life are passive. They are part of the environment like the color of the house. They don't actively interact with you specifically.

>Advertisement insofar that it lets consumers stay aware of the available alternatives for the products they need and use is a good thing

And the vast majority of people will never ever check that to find relevant things to them.

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

#268

Post by jakear »

greggman3 wrote: post #245
jjulius wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm not trying to defend Banksy specifically here... >So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? He can be both, "vandal" and "artist" aren't mutually exclusive. >Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that? I'm not answering for the person you're responding to, but for me, I'd say I feel fine about that. There are people who find nudity in art o…

Objecting to unapproved grafitti is not about "is it art". it's about property destruction. If you disagree then I'll be happy to come over to your house and paint whatever "I want" on your house, your car, and TV, your computer, your sofa. If you'd be upset that I painted your stuff then you agree with the people who see it as property destruction. If you'd be upset for your own stuff but not when that stuff belongs…

Did you read the linked article? [1] The only thing that matters is if the property owner likes it. If the property owner likes it, it stays up, if they don't, they file a vandalism case with the city.

Banksy is a vandal, as I'm sure anyone would admit, himself included. I am equally sure that there have been times when property owners haven't liked his work and have tried to report him for vandalism. But given he doesn't make a habit of posting videos of his actions online and bragging about them, he doesn't get caught/attributed.

https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/02/banksy-david-william-noll-ric...

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

#269

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

DarylZero wrote: post #242
blackhaz wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does it mean to say "we must respect the law"? Banksy demonstrates that this is not true. You only need to avoid law enforcement. It seems to me, of course I have no way of knowing, but it SEEMS to me that you are NOT EVEN AWARE that you're not making arguments.

Most cities in my country have multiple street cameras on every corner. Good luck "avoiding the law" here.

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

#270

Post by cs702 »

Like almost everyone else on HN, I believe everyone should have the right to block ads in any city, and it should be possible with VR technology in the not-too-distant future.

That said, I would always want to live in a city in which advertisers are constantly fighting each other to get everyone's attention with ads, in every possible way, to the extent permitted by reasonable zone/cosmetic regulations[a], because the alternative is often symptomatic of economic stagnation or even disaster.

Anecdotally, a city without ads is a city without economic growth. Compare:

* Cities in the former Soviet Union: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=soviet%20union%20ci...

* Cities in North Korea: https://www.google.com/search?q=north+korea+city+streets&tbm...

* Cities in East Germany before reunification: https://www.google.com/search?q=east+germany+city+streets+be...

to, say,

* Peking streets: https://www.google.com/search?q=peking+streets&tbm=isch

* Tokyo streets: https://www.google.com/search?q=tokyo+streets&tbm=isch

* Times Square: https://www.google.com/search?q=times+square+nyc&tbm=isch

--

[a] For example, in the US it is virtually impossible to display ads on residential streets, because doing so requires getting explicit permission from local government bodies like a neighborhood commission.

Post reply on HN