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

161–170 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#161

Post by Symbiote »

hot_gril wrote: post #106
citified wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that ads on ugly 10-lane highways don't really detract from anything, but this is not the case with the cities this organisation deals with. They are mostly historic, pedestrianised cities in England where (especially digital) advertising would be of serious detriment to the surroundings, which is what is being campaigned against here.

That makes sense. I wouldn't want ads or anything else ugly in a historic area, but also this is normally something you combat locally. It seems like this site targets an oddly broad audience.

A lot of people in Britain live in, work in or regularly visit a historic area.

However, I think they're targeting everywhere in the UK, historic or not.

Re: Adfree Cities

#162

Post by paxys »

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…

This makes no sense. Solo entrepreneurs, Etsy/Shopify stores and other random small businesses aren't buying giant billboards in the middle of cities, they are getting customers through Google and Facebook ads. Big tech literally invented direct consumer targeting.

Re: Adfree Cities

#163

Post by Y_Y »

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?

But I don't want to sell my attention! At least not at the crappy valuation the bike advertisers offer.

Money being fungible means that one dollar is as good as another. It all goes in a big pile for the budget. In other words, you don't have to match up your revenue sources with your costs (like bikes with advertising), though this is frequently used for the purpose of trying to justify one thing or another.

Re: Adfree Cities

#164

Post by zamadatix »

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.…

I wonder how much this bike contract actually takes to maintain vs how much the holder gets in advertisements. Even if near flat even, which feels unlikely as why bother holding the contract then, it's still a way with more overhead than just funding the bike program.

Re: Adfree Cities

#165

Post by paxys »

everdrive wrote: post #98

Adfree is the only thing I'll currently tolerate. I tried out the Spotify client back on linux when the company was really new. If I turned the volume off while it played an advertisement, it actually paused the ad until I turned the volume back up. One strike and they're out. Spotify has been banned in my household ever since.

Or, you know, you could pay them.

Re: Adfree Cities

#166

Post by AnimalMuppet »

okr wrote: post #159
j_maffe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?

You give money you can't really afford to give in order to get goods that you don't really need. You do so because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are better at manipulating you than you are at not being manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where you cannot help but see them. That's what's wrong about that.

Re: Adfree Cities

#167

Post by ponector »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49
ponector wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system. Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.

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.]

In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service.

My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.

Re: Adfree Cities

#168

Post by pastacacioepepe »

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?

It's funny how nobody ever asks this question when the topic is military spending.

Re: Adfree Cities

#169

Post by bigstrat2003 »

chankstein38 wrote: post #85

I've never understood why billboards are legal. They're distracting and placed along the roads and highways. In my driving course I remember being told that even so much as talking to a passenger or adjusting the volume of the radio can be dangerous so you should be paying 100% attention to the road. So why are billboards, things that are specifically built, along roads, to draw my attention legal? So let's go adfree…

I got the same lecture in driver's ed, but let's be honest: that was never accurate. It's perfectly fine to talk to someone while you're driving, or to adjust the volume on the radio real quick. I imagine that the lectures given to teens learning to drive are motivated by the fact that new drivers need to focus more, and are stubborn so they need to have the point driven home harder. For a responsible adult driver, neither conversation nor radio adjustments nor billboards are a dangerous distraction.

I do think that billboards are ugly and would prefer to not have them, but I don't think that there is a reasonable justification to ban them on safety grounds.

Re: Adfree Cities

#170

Post by Zak »

maxwell wrote: post #91
andrewfromx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free speech in the USA prevents this. What do you define as "ad". Can I talk to the person behind me in line at starbucks and tell them how I feel about the new iphone? Am I advertising to them? What if I work for apple? Can I wear a tshirt that says "iphone are great!" Ban that??

Content bans are unconstitutional, blanket bans on visual pollution are not, as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Austin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio...

Alaska is an interesting case, as it mostly has a right-libertarian political culture that says "it's nobody's business what I do on my own property" but draws the line at billboards.

I grew up there, and seeing billboards other places was jarring.

Post reply on HN