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

591–600 of 633 posts

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

#591

Post by brokenkebab »

dwaltrip wrote: post #326
brokenkebab wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 making a city more beautiful…? How about some landscaping and art instead?

For starters, let's read as written: I didn't say beautuful. Second: ok, replace ads with landscaping. One note though: ads pay for themselves, will it work with landscaping?

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

#592

Post by agumonkey »

blackhaz wrote: post #192
agumonkey wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something different about streets and web. I'm not sure but on my laptop i kinda expect things to go to the point, fast. A street is not a mean to an end. So a bus stop with some ad.. doesn't really changes everything. Consider web ads more like annoying bus boys trying to get you to order something in their restaurant by stepping in front of you and mirroring every move.

A street is as much a mean to an end as a laptop. I use streets to get from point A to point B, much like you use your laptop to arrive from state A to state B. I never have an intention to see ads when I go outside. Sometimes I use streets for fun, to stroll without aim, but never I go outside to "see some ads," much like you likely never open your laptop with an intention to see an ad.

These are not arguments but additional trails of my thoughts on the topic:

You went outside, you motivated yourself, and passing by a sign is not much now. My laptop is a bit of a promise of lazy direct access, which is more at odds with the ads.

Also street ads have been planned, there are usual spots and looks. Web is a bit wilder.

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

#593

Post by blackhaz »

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.

I don't understand you. You're saying we can go about, say, murdering people and we are fine with that as long as we don't get caught? Is breaking social agreement acceptable if enforcement fails? If my personal ethics allows me to break the law, but enforcement fails, can I still claim to be a positive element of the society?

What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed to a certain principle. The society has, basically, agreed that enduring outdoor ads is acceptable, while enduring random property damage is not, as there are no exceptions for ad vandalism -- that's what I call to respect here -- agreed principles. If we don't agree with that, we must change the law. If society we live in is ripe for the change, then it should be possible. If not, we have no moral right to do property damage while leveraging all the benefits of living in that society.

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

#594

Post by blackhaz »

cataphract wrote: post #341
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…

If you're saying that everyone should/must follow the law in all circumstances, that's an extreme position few people would agree with. This would mean inform on Jews to the Nazis or returning slaves to their owners under the Fugitives Slaves Act, to take an example from a democracy. That's even without considering that many laws are somewhat indeterminate, internally inconsistent or at odds with other laws. If you'r…

Interesting examples. I would say that Germany at that point was a rather undemocratic society, with all the terror by the Nazis. Can we consider slave-owning society democratic if it includes slaves? This makes me wondering if the position of respecting the law as a form of social agreement is untenable in an undemocratic society. But then again, democracy is a spectrum...

Coming to your question, I don't know. When do legal rights end and moral rights begin? Something I'd really like to read more about. I remember enjoying Michael Sandel's lectures online and then reading his book. Would really like to find something in his style on this topic.

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

#595

Post by blackhaz »

ouid wrote: post #346
blackhaz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck that indeed. Very strong message here, and I love it. I wish I could take all those ads and shove them into their asses. But what is being suggested here? What's mine to take? If I see an ad, can I reuse the artwork? No. If I see a car, I can't just copy it's design. Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? No, that would be vandalism. As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in…

Banksy is talking about moral right, not legal right. This is obvious unless you're being intentionally dense. He is saying that you have cosmic permission to perform acts of vandalism to advertisements. As long as you don't get caught, you're alright with your chosen deity or whatever. It's a pretty strong philosophical argument in that direction, in my opinion. If you're disagreeing with that point, you should be e…

I am afraid extending personal "moral rights" to the domain of property damage is a risky avenue to pursue. Who defines what's moral? I also don't agree with that the failure of enforcement by the society automatically grants anybody a moral right to break the law. What about all uncaught murderers? Actually, it is interesting we transverse to physical damage here. I wouldn't equate seeing outdoor ads to receiving bodily harm, to a theft of a piece of "consciousness" or attention - eh, maybe...

I don't know much about philosophy, but what if we can assume that legal rights end and moral rights begin only when we deal with someone's natural rights, is this tenable? If we take the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, as long as there is no danger to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should not deem ourselves as being in the power to judge what property we can damage ourselves. Sounds like something I could live with.

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

#596

Post by gruturo »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #489
banana_giraffe wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An archive of the company behind that tech [1], has this to say: > Each car radio sends out a signal at a frequency higher than the one it is receiving from the radio station. When a car passes by one of the MobilTrak sensors, the sensor picks up on the signal to determine what the driver is listening to on the radio And US6813475B1 seems to be the patent behind the tech. If they ever really could find that sort of s…

> Each car radio sends out a signal at a frequency higher than the one it is receiving from the radio station. Why would it do that? I thought car radios were merely receivers, not transmitters. This is insane...

It's a side effect of how tuning works (local oscillator), and the signal is extremely weak, very little of it radiates out due to some components / PCB traces behaving as an accidental (poor) antenna.

Still, with good enough equipment it can be detected even from some distance.

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

#597

Post by diordiderot »

shakow wrote: post #54
nirui wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those ads were designed for womans too...

Why would they be designed toward women; don't millions of men buy their own underwears in your country?

80% of consumer spending is by women in the us.

Women are more likely to replace 'worn out' clothes

There's a good chance that the majority of men's underwear is bought by women.

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

#598

Post by shukantpal »

Fnoord wrote: post #581
shukantpal wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So if I browse a website and get distracted by all the ads, it is my own fault?

At a certain point, yes - if the ad doesn’t take a major portion of your screen and is non-interactive. You are not a victim - there are reasonable boundaries of being “annoyed”.

> This has a social function, its a two way benefit. Advertising isn't. Its a one-way communication.

Not really. You could’ve easily claimed “I don’t GAF who you are and don’t say Hi to me”. The one-sidedness is an arbitrary constraint you’ve put to try to reject this scenario - it should have no bearing on the annoyingness of the sound waves.

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

#599

Post by berkes »

duxup wrote: post #225
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.

It sounds like you just substitute what you don’t like for what want to see? I don’t think that had anything to do with what I said. Although I’m curious What would a not “skewed” public space looks like, and how do you manage that?

If I sounded like that, I should have spent more effort. Sorry.

What I was trying to bring across, is that it is "public space" which implies it equally belongs to everyone. But that this is not the case for what you are allowed to advertise. Corporations, or at least "those with connections and/or money" are allowed to be heard a lot more than anyone who lacks these connections or funds.

I call that "skewed". A fair and level "public space" would give anyone, regardless of how much money, connections or lawyers they have, the same ability to present their message.

I am not saying that this would always be a good thing; because this probably means far more advertising noise. It would probably turn our streets into a printed version of twitter. Ugh. I am trying to say that in order to make this less skewed, "those with money, connections and/or lawyers" should also not be allowed to use that public space to deliver their messages. That is a level playing field too!

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

#600

Post by DarylZero »

blackhaz wrote: post #593
DarylZero wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand you. You're saying we can go about, say, murdering people and we are fine with that as long as we don't get caught? Is breaking social agreement acceptable if enforcement fails? If my personal ethics allows me to break the law, but enforcement fails, can I still claim to be a positive element of the society? What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed…

The law doesn't come from "society agreeing" -- it's imposed by the strong on the weak and the young.
Post reply on HN