Live data from Hacker News

A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

good.is

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#81
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What externalities? What material harm is caused by putting up a sign, beyond "I disapprove of it"?

Poor aesthetics cause psychological harm through both distraction and pure ugliness. I shouldn't have to combat decades of scientific research on attention-stealing simply to maintain my train of thought as I walk down the street.

Admit it - you have no evidence other than anecdotes to prove that signs cause material harm, and therefore externalities.

This is government red tape that hurts the economy in that city.

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#82
post #18
post #3

I would be interested to see before and after shots. Was their advertising problem really so bad or was just about the same as any other city? Edit: Found one: http://banbillboardblight.org/?page_id=4251

After watching that, I could easily support banning 3rd party advertising. But removing the ads for the business just under the ad does not strike me as better. It makes the business district look sleepy and quiet, rather than active and bustling. And as a resident I don't mind ads telling me what I can do/get/buy at a location - that's sort of what I want when I visit a business district.

After reading your comment, I could easily support banning you from having children (joking)

But really, why do people resort to controlling others this way? It's a real shame. Freedom and property rights are important, no matter what the visual flavor of the day.

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#83
post #70

I actually enjoy advertising in the city, especially '90s-style neons, bus stop billboards, and those illegally plastered on construction site fences. I feel like I'm the only person who does. It makes the city look vibrant, and often covers up some of the... less successful architectural experiments.

You're not alone. If I want a place free of visual clutter then I head outside the city. But advertising is a form of speech, and without it I would feel silenced. Corporate propaganda is similar political graffiti: sure you can make a case against it, but the principle of free speech should outweigh all objections. So yeah, public advertising gives me the warm fuzzies too.

great point

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#84
post #70

I actually enjoy advertising in the city, especially '90s-style neons, bus stop billboards, and those illegally plastered on construction site fences. I feel like I'm the only person who does. It makes the city look vibrant, and often covers up some of the... less successful architectural experiments.

You're not alone. If I want a place free of visual clutter then I head outside the city. But advertising is a form of speech, and without it I would feel silenced. Corporate propaganda is similar political graffiti: sure you can make a case against it, but the principle of free speech should outweigh all objections. So yeah, public advertising gives me the warm fuzzies too.

Do you live in the city?

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#85
post #73
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all government regulations are bad. The worst thing anyone can do in support of free markets is somehow insist that there should be no government regulations. We have regulations on vehicle drive-by noise limits. Yes, this costs consumers and manufacturers. But overall, it is a net gain as it results in a quieter society, which is better. Visual pollution is just as bad as noise pollution. It's a sensible move fo…

All government regulation is bad because none of us has the moral right to dictate the behavior of strangers. The aggregate gain in a quieter society that you describe is not an aggregate gain in happiness. It's a society in which we're silenced. Advertising is a form of speech, and we should all support free speech in all forms, lest we find ourselves silenced. Hacker News would be free of visual clutter if we all s…

Government regulation is not necessarily the dictating of behaviour to strangers.

Every collective has it's own rules which are mostly designed to facilitate better running of the collective. This is true from the couple, the family, the business, the church, right on up to the planet as a whole.

It is imperfect to assume that everyone will agree to get along and abide by the same rules. Therefore, you need a level of collective creation and agreeance of rules in order to try and optimise behaviours.

Once you decide that there needs to be rules, you've got to decide on who makes the rules. There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.

So in a sense, we surrender ourselves to certain rules in the understanding that we consider the cost to be greater than the benefit. This will always involve compromises - but in a truly free society freedom to stick up massive advertising hoardings conflicts with the freedom to walk down the street without having to see such things.

The middle road, the compromise, is a representative government whereby we agree to rules in the understanding that, if the rules aren't working out in the way we want, we collectively change the rulemakers.

Of course, in practice, there is plenty of evidence that this is problematic. For the most part, there is far too much government regulation over matters which the government has no part in agreeing to.

In the case of the advertising hoardings - well, presumably whomever enacted the ban would be free to be challenged in an election and the decision overturned if people felt the cost exceeded the benefit. In this case, I don't really think it's a case of violating free speech, as the advertisers are still free to speak in many forms, just that there are restrictions in a certain form.

But a dogmatic sticking to an approach where nobody has any say over anybody elses business just invites ridicule, just as communists and socialists of varying stripes invite their own ridicule with ridiculous 'property is theft' comments.

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#86

Why don't they regulate away poverty, while they're at it? I look forward to the future, when citizens realize their government is the biggest barrier between themselves and prosperity.

People come together, through the government, to stop unwanted advertising. The law works, and the people are happy. Ericingram bitches about how the government is the biggest barrier to prosperity. -_-

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#87

Why don't they regulate away poverty, while they're at it? I look forward to the future, when citizens realize their government is the biggest barrier between themselves and prosperity.

I look foreward to a future in which humanity has evolved beyond simpleminded black & white thinking.

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#88

Dislike. Advertising is what gives cities their unique visual culture. We associate different typographic 'looks' with different cities. Where would Miami be without its bold, ostentatious signage? Where would New York City be without its iconic frankin gothic and gotham centered visual culture?

> Advertising is what gives cities their unique visual culture.

No it doesn't. Architecture, etc, does that.

More to the point, cities are where people live, not works of art. Seeing all the advertisements in Manhattan might be fun for tourists, but they're straining for people who live there.

Re: A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising

#89
post #73
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all government regulations are bad. The worst thing anyone can do in support of free markets is somehow insist that there should be no government regulations. We have regulations on vehicle drive-by noise limits. Yes, this costs consumers and manufacturers. But overall, it is a net gain as it results in a quieter society, which is better. Visual pollution is just as bad as noise pollution. It's a sensible move fo…

All government regulation is bad because none of us has the moral right to dictate the behavior of strangers. The aggregate gain in a quieter society that you describe is not an aggregate gain in happiness. It's a society in which we're silenced. Advertising is a form of speech, and we should all support free speech in all forms, lest we find ourselves silenced. Hacker News would be free of visual clutter if we all s…

You're a nutter.
Post reply on HN