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

581–590 of 633 posts

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

#581

Post by Fnoord »

shukantpal wrote: post #563
Fnoord wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. And, on top of that, a driver doesn't have the freedom to completely ignore the expression (not yet). I can ignore some yelling fellow on a market (never liked that annoying, noisy shit either btw) with noisecancelling earplugs. One can't drive with a blindfold. I'm sure there is go…

If you can be materially distracted from driving by a banner on the side of the road, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place. If you are annoyed by a passive banner on the side of a road, then I wonder if you must be annoyed by someone saying Hi passing by. Noisy shit, eh?

> If you can be materially distracted from driving by a banner on the side of the road, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

So if I browse a website and get distracted by all the ads, it is my own fault? This is victim blaming, as well as a dishonest take on the matter. There's not one banner on the road. Its distraction upon distraction upon distraction. Its like with smartphones. The problem isn't that someone quickly glances on their smartphone once. It is continuous distraction, on the wrong moment.

> If you are annoyed by a passive banner on the side of a road, then I wonder if you must be annoyed by someone saying Hi passing by. Noisy shit, eh?

This has a social function, its a two way benefit. Advertising isn't. Its a one-way communication. You can't talk back. Also, I already explained we can filter sound completely.

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

#582

Post by Fnoord »

Supermancho wrote: post #564
Fnoord wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. And, on top of that, a driver doesn't have the freedom to completely ignore the expression (not yet). I can ignore some yelling fellow on a market (never liked that annoying, noisy shit either btw) with noisecancelling earplugs. One can't drive with a blindfold. I'm sure there is go…

> Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. That wasn't the point, although you are tacitly advancing the idea that annoying signage is acceptable whenever you think it's fine AND what you "watch" is voluntary. You're halfway there. There's not much to be gained from logically stepping you through it. > Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. Given the kind of an…

I have thought it through very well, and my logic is consistent. Acceptible or not depends on 1) if it is useful in the situation (traffic signs are, for driver safety; advertising isn't) 2) whether the receiver can block the ad with technology (not yet possible on road with advertising). You can ridicule me all you want. 33% of all internet users decided to use an ad blocker. They do not want to get distracted by silly skyscrapers, popups, flashy sounds, large irrelevant banners, and so on and so forth.

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

#583

Post by berkes »

marklubi wrote: post #232
berkes wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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? You are certainly allowed to. Pony up for the ad space if you want to promote the opposite, or advertise something else entirely.

I am not allowed to use Advertising Channels to defame a brand. I am not even allowed to mention a brand. At least, this is how it is in my country ("enforced" by Reclame Code Commissie) where a committee that oversees the Ad industry can prohibit advertisers from using that infrastructure.

Basically: if you propose a billboard saying "Coca Cola Is Proven[cite] Bad For Your Health" you won't be granted any space.

And even if you find a space not monopolized by such committees, you'll be taken to court by expensive lawyers over defamation or trademark infringment or any other silly thing.

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

#584

Post by berkes »

thepasswordis wrote: post #265
berkes wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What if coca cola decided that they didn't like the color of your house

I'm quite certain that if I painted my house white and red with silver curly letters on it spelling "Cola is Sugar" there'd be multiple laws that expensive lawyers can help enforce.

Those laws (trademark, libel, etc) practically grant large corporations from taking over public space. In my country there's committees (seated by advertising industry) that monopolize the space and enforce this in even greater detail. Hell, we even have committees that tell what color you are allowed to paint your front-door (Schoonheidscommitee). This latter, however, is democratically ruled (local govts) so something that Coca Cola has no seat in.

So the answer to your question is: yes. They already can, while the opposite is not possible.

But the question itself is actually a false dichotomy. Me being able to oppose Coca Cola on their own turf: by running a campaign against them, does not imply that Coca Cola can automatically then decide the color of my house.

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

#585

Post by f00zz »

marcosdumay wrote: post #165
lotsofpulp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider solving a problem directly to be less bureaucratic than solving it indirectly by involving even more parties and hoping they do what you want them to do and having to negotiate with them on how much they will do in exchange for what they are getting. Taxpayer pays x to government which pays workers to clean. Taxpayer pays x-y to government which pays x-y to government workers who need to go out and negotia…

There are unavoidable inefficiencies for a government to perform any action. The idea that a government can maintain all the surfaces of a large city in a pleasant situation is completely unrealistic. It can at most decentralize to to smaller bodies (and get a huge variance of outcomes, what is quite an ok solution too), but São Paulo doesn't have those bodies and is organized in a way that makes them almost impossib…

The solution should be simple: allow billboard ads, but tax them based on surface area. Use the tax revenue to hire more street sweepers. This shouldn't be hard to implement, as the city is already quite effective at fining businesses that do not comply with Cidade Limpa. Want to turn a building facade into a giant LED billboard, Shenzhen style? Fine, just pay up. Everybody wins.

This kind of policy would make sense for a quaint old European town, but here we're talking about the largest city in a developing country. Generally as a developing country your first priority should be to, well, develop. The last thing you want to do is stifle economic activity.

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

#586

Post by eloisius »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #571
eloisius wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure it’s out there, but I had a similar idea to make an audio device plugin like soundflower to pipe audio through and automatically mute when it detects an ad. We really need an OpenWrt-like project for smart TVs so that you could run something like what you created to mute the sound and display art during ad breaks.

how about we use a pi-hole to send a webhook whenever a url is blocked and then we can use that hook to do the display art thing? that would be nice

Point ad domains to 127.0.0.1 and run a local https that displays art.

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

#587

Post by southerntofu »

qybaz wrote: post #11
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…

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

Doesn't it, though? Are you not many times asked to "just sign this paper" which you are not expected to read?

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

#588

Post by throwawaycities »

midasuni wrote: post #534
throwawaycities wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was that built for cars? You tell me are cars and traffic a big problem on that road? Would it be a problem if companies started dumping their products/marketing on that road to obstruct it?

The main problem on the road in town is parked cars obstructing it. They closed the parking spaces for covid so people could walk along it without being squished and things were far far better. Sadly they have reintroduced the ability to litter the road with your car and it’s gone back to being rubbish. I don’t go to that part of town any more.

>I don’t go to that part of town any more.

You specifically brought up the road in front of your house. I find your claim you don’t go to your house anymore because of cars entirely disingenuous.

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

#589

Post by matbatt38 »

n0n0n4t0r wrote: post #35

I live in the area of Grenoble, a french city leaded by ecologists than banned ads several years ago (since 2014 if I'm correct). This is a pleasure, or, more precisely, I feel overwhelmed when I exit my city and am surrounded by so many ads! https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20141124-fr...

Just so you know, they didn't actually replaced them by trees. And they didn't stop ads in the bus stop even after 2019. But having no other ads is already nice !

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

#590

Post by southerntofu »

brokenkebab wrote: post #85
southerntofu wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads are everywhere you go on the streets. They lure your attention span with bright colors and LEDs which may create accidents. They reinforce a sense of need to consume and/or a feeling of being inappropriate as a person. Supermarkets will try very hard to "give" you their customer card so they can collect more detailed info about you and profile your habits. Companies often place adverts illegallly [0] by recruitin…

Telling "lure you attention" is just a way to frame it. There are plenty of evidence that visual monotony has negative effect on mind, and FWIW in most modern urban environments (blocky, and painfully uniform) ads often do a little bit of favor by providing variance. I've been to places where street ads are heavily regulated to the point it's noticable that there are less billboards and they are more plain. Unless th…

> ads often do a little bit of favor by providing variance

If your neighborhood needs ads to have variance, it says something really sad about it. You don't need gray concrete everywhere in order to build dwellings. Some cities like Cuba overflow with city gardens to feed the locals.

> As for claim about accidents: how about murals, decorative lights on houses, big brightly lit windows?

Murals are not a problem: they're part of the environment, not something designed to stand out of the street (literally). As for flashing or strong lights, they are indeed a problem in my view.

Post reply on HN