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

141–150 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#141

Post by j_maffe »

okr wrote: post #73
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes. [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited: Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]

So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.

The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.

Re: Adfree Cities

#142

Post by amadeuspagel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
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…

Where I'm from, billboards are another monopoly. Sure, they're not the big tech monopoly, but is that the part that matters?

Even if billboards are another monopoly, they creates more competition in the entire advertising market.

Re: Adfree Cities

#143

Post by Espressosaurus »

celestialcheese wrote: post #131
Y_Y wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

If public funds pay for it, you personally (assuming you pay taxes) are also paying for the program, but this time with real dollars instead of attention. > money is fungible What?

Money can be moved.

Re: Adfree Cities

#144

Post by j_maffe »

massysett wrote: post #129
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We will pay for them (through governmental taxes) instead of the advertised products that the advertisements get us to pay for. It's a net-win for the community.

Re: Adfree Cities

#145

Post by technotarek »

graeme wrote: post #65
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

>what about all the mail spam — physical mail like catalogs and email advertising/marketing? You can opt out of junk mail. Varies by area. Likely can be done by a "no junk" sticker, or by opting out via your postal service, or both. (A lot of fliers aren't distributed by postal service, but legally must obey no junk signs) Email is trickier, but recently I've had success simply unsubscribing from absolutely everythin…

They work on me and that’s exactly the problem — that is they work at manipulating me. And that’s why I want them gone. I’d rather free up the energy I spend on trying to ignore them and put that energy into something that actually makes my life better.

Re: Adfree Cities

#146

Post by celestialcheese »

Does this include billboards at local tracks, ballfields, sporting centers?

What about ads inside airports? Bus stops? Transit stations?

Where will the money come from to fill in the budget gaps left by removing these ads?

If I'm at a local minor league baseball game, and see an ad for "Bill the plumber", how is that a problem? It's local community supporting local community spaces. If Bud Lite buys a spot next to them, great! More dollars for my local ballpark so they can stay open.

The nature of local, physical advertising is that the ad dollars stay (mostly)* local.

* Mostly because clearchannel manages most billboards on roadways around the country. They pay rent to landowners, who may or may not be local, but they also pay local taxes. So not perfect dollar retention.

Re: Adfree Cities

#147

Post by ydant »

NittLion78 wrote: post #28
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…

Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maine all do not allow for billboard advertisement, so at least there are a few places you can go for respite.

Virginia has a very small number of billboards, and it's definitely one of the nice things about this area.

I haven't worked out exactly why some exist, but almost none do. The law is here:

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter12/

Regardless, the general feel of driving here is very different from many other states because of this rule. It's one of the first things I notice when I drive somewhere else in the US.

Re: Adfree Cities

#148

Post by iambateman »

It's hard to overstate how peaceful being in an ad-free city is. the first time I experienced this was Hilton Head Island, which does a great job of limiting signage and ads inside the island.

I didn't realize how much the visual noise really does make a difference.

Next, let's do cars driving faster than 30mph. :D

Re: Adfree Cities

#149

Post by tclancy »

docdeek wrote: post #4

The award of the contract for the outdoor advertising space (bus shelters, roadside space) in my city was tied to providing and maintaining a cheap metro-area wide bike sharing scheme. For 30ish euros a year I get unlimited 45 minute trips on bikes that are widely available, well maintained, and easy to use. In 2022 there were more than 10 million trips taken on these hire bikes and nearly 84,000 annual subscribers.…

>This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space.

I get what you mean, but arguments like this confuse the underlying issue of how we value and price things. It's certainly not "only possible" that way. It makes me think of the Mark Fisher line “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”

Re: Adfree Cities

#150

Post by celestialcheese »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #143
celestialcheese wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If public funds pay for it, you personally (assuming you pay taxes) are also paying for the program, but this time with real dollars instead of attention. > money is fungible What?

Money can be moved.

From where? You might live in a flush city, with lots of extra discretionary $$ flowing around, but most cities in the US are nearly bankrupt, and leveraged to the hilt on providing basic services. This is the definition of a "luxury belief", thinking the average city can just find money and put it towards removing ads that pay for services.
Post reply on HN