Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adfree Cities

adfreecities.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#121

Post by digging »

dudul wrote: post #58
technotarek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know where you live, but what about all the mail spam — physical mail like catalogs and email advertising/marketing? And that half of what’s published by most journalistic outlets is now veiled ads? Dear Products, I know me better than you. I’ll come find you WHEN I need you. In the meantime, please just sit tight and stay out of my way. -Mr Consumption is Overrated

I do like these. I need them as kindling to start a fire.

Careful, many are coated in glossy toxic plastics that also make them impossible to recycle. Just an extra "fuck you" to the world by the advertiser in permanently ruining the materials they used.

Re: Adfree Cities

#122

Post by Y_Y »

tylervigen wrote: post #6

I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards i…

There used to be a widget you could get from the likes of ThinkGeek that would spam the "off" IR signal for lots of tvs and commercial displays. I remember seeing it as a neat trick twenty years ago, but more and more.I wish I really had one. Lots of storefronts have absurdly bright screens on all night now, project moving shit onto the sidewalk and just generally bombard your vision with distraction.

I imagine you can use something like a Flipper to get a similar "put-outer" device nowadays but I haven't come across anyone using it in that way.

Re: Adfree Cities

#123

Post by Y_Y »

digging wrote: post #31
amadeuspagel wrote: post #9

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point…

> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form…

JCDecaux seems to run pretty much every billboard/hoarding/outdoor ad surface in Europe.

Re: Adfree Cities

#124

Post by ToucanLoucan »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #43
tylervigen wrote: post #6

I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards i…

Do you watch any sports on TV? The amount of ads packed into an NBA basketball game on TV is startling and exhausting: - each player's jersey - arena walls - courtside walls (tv screens) - projected onto the court floor (updated each minute) - on the side and top of the backboard - most TV graphics ("Taco Bell play of the game") - split-screen ads during free-throws - traditional commercials during time-outs

That is fucking egregious even by the absolute trip-hazard-in-hell standards of television, holy shit. I have no idea why anyone consumes anything on TV anymore.

Re: Adfree Cities

#125

Post by Y_Y »

celestialcheese wrote: post #100
Espressosaurus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.

> So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere. considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative. Everything is a tradeoff.…

This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse economies of scale for public transportation that's accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is fungible!

Re: Adfree Cities

#126

Post by digging »

vlvdus wrote: post #102
legitster wrote: post #69

I'll be the contrarian here and say that I actually like certain advertisements and billboards. If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad? I'm sorry, they are not going to plant trees in Times Square to replace the billboards. Even in their own press photos, they are showing several billboards that are covering up even uglier buildings! Maybe you are an enlight…

I support you. I've been living in a city with no billboards for a while - it's rather boring for various reasons, billboards would be an improvement.

How boring can your city be that billboards are enough entertainment to improve it? Are you sure you're, y'know, participating in urban life at all?

Re: Adfree Cities

#127

Post by digging »

kzrdude wrote: post #16

Ad-free goes hand in hand with distraction-free for me. Thus "Stay up to date with Adfree Cities" and "Watch the video to see three steps you can take today" do not speak to me, at all.

So you're only interested in insulating yourself from ads? That's fine, but why even click the link then? Neither of those things they're offering are inherently distractions; it's not like they're signing you up for push notifications or unsolicited calls.

Re: Adfree Cities

#128

Post by ToucanLoucan »

celestialcheese wrote: post #87
digging wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form…

> > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly > Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local businesses in my city have literally never paid for advertising. Are they? From my experience, at least on roads here in the US, the ma…

Don't forget sex shops. I road trip quite often and the amount of billboard advertising purchased buy Lion's Den is truly staggering.

Re: Adfree Cities

#129

Post by massysett »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #107
helen___keller wrote: post #12

I understand why people hate advertising but if I’m honest, I don’t agree with having an “adfree city”. I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo). It makes the space feel living, breathing, and alive, which a city should be. And then the visually quiet spaces, like temples and parks, feel much more sweet. Also at a conceptual level I disagree with the jus…

You don't need ads for that, it could just be art. You could enjoy vibrant artistic billboards without anyone trying to shove products down your throat. Ever thought of that?

Who is going to pay for them?

Re: Adfree Cities

#130

Post by michaelt »

digging wrote: post #31
amadeuspagel wrote: post #9

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point…

> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form…

> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth.

Your experience of this will depend on where you're living.

When I lived in a 100,000 population city, the local theatres and museums weren't really big/organised enough to run billboard marketing campaigns and could fill their seats without. On the other hand, in a 500,000+ population city you were more likely to see such organisations marketing.

Places like theatres tend to have location-specific marketing needs, because if you're 90 minutes travel from the opera house you will not be attending a Tuesday evening performance that ends at 22:30*, and marketing it to you would be a waste of time.

I still hate city advertising though, and the way the ad infestation spreads once it's started.

* Yes, people will travel more than 90 minutes for a Christmas performance of The Nutcracker, as a special treat - perhaps even staying in a hotel. But if you're trying to keep your theatre open in months other than December, you've got to fill the seats. And of course, patrons who buy interval drinks can't drive home, further shrinking your core market...

Post reply on HN