371–380 of 633 posts
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.
Sao Paulo made all billboards and ads illegal. It's a thing. People can do it if they want. I'm pretty sure they don't allow billboards in some states in the US.
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.
Sao Paulo made all billboards and ads illegal. It's a thing. People can do it if they want. I'm pretty sure they don't allow billboards in some states in the US.
My wife and I were talking about this a few weeks ago. I've basically stopped listening to terrestrial radio because it seems like the majority of it is ads. A trend I've noticed over the last few years is that gas stations specifically. As gas stations have replaced older pumps with newer ones, the new ones feature LCD screens that, as soon as you are done selecting the myriad of options it now requires just to put…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "logic" at all here. All I did was point out how the other person didn't even make an argument. Nor did you. You just appeal to some popular notion that everyone already agrees with ("treat humans like humans"). Then you suggest this is the same as the other thing, again giving no reason. Maybe you really can give reason to someone, who abuses people, not to do it. To treat humans as humans. But you would…
You are making an argument here, that the other person didn't make an argument; that means you were applying logic. Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). You can extend that logic to say that you "can" abuse humans. But your logic totally misses societa…
> Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements).
Who said anything about "societal norms"?
You are just inventing things. You invent an appeal to social norms, then you invent a reply to it.
In fact, all I did was point out how no justification was even given for a claim.
I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. Does it, though? The linked TMZ article suggests the lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles DA on behalf of the property owner whose property lost value because of the defacement. It doesn't appear that Banksy himself is involved in the lawsuit.
The postcard copyright lawsuit, not the vandalism case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most cities in my country have multiple street cameras on every corner. Good luck "avoiding the law" here.
How do those camera work at night with a peep wearing a ski mask? Or even an IR hat
I can’t stand ads on government property, particularly in spaces where I am captive. The best example is public transportation. There are ads all over the station and then ads all over the interior (and exterior) of the train/bus during your ride. Why should I be subjected to this private noise while taking public transportation? Some city needs to stand up and fix this. Allow me to get where I am going in peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you gaining by arguing this? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think an artist who hand-paints pieces on walls is comparable to a corporation that copy-pastes their flashing, carefully targeted, profit-seeking message onto dozens of billboards overlooking a highway? Are their motives and the results of their work not wildly different? Your second example is valid. But your first example is a c…
A lot of times people who loudly yell "fuck the system" are also quietly using the system when it suits them, that's my point. Bansky is no "dismantle the capitalism" hero or whatever pedestal people have him on.
The tradeoffs for choosing this path will be different for different situations, but I don't think it's fair to say that taking advantage of rules you claim to hate is always clear-cut hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paid online services have been a thing long before internet advertising took over. People used to have search, email, GPS navigation, business directories, news, weather and lots more before Google was even an idea. Why do people suddenly think giving up your privacy to look at obnoxious ads all day is the only way technology will progress further?
How will anyone know about search, email or GPS navigation? If its word of mouth, isn't this a form of advertising? How will they pay for them without a credit card; which will be issued by a bank that can't advertise them. Does that also rely upon word of mouth? How can a new entrant arrive in the banking industry without being able to advertise its services? Without advertising new companies can't develop new servi…
In both of the above cases you as the consumer have to actively seek them out. But I'd be OK with public services being 'advertised' on TV, billboards etc as there would be no profit motive.