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

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#181

Post by _dain_ »

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.]

>Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service.

Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.

Re: Adfree Cities

#182

Post by hot_gril »

legitster wrote: post #175
Symbiote wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can totally see not wanting ads in historic areas, but on their website you can see them protesting billboards in industrial sections and freeway underpasses and the like.

Man, this site almost looks like an intentional distraction from real pollution-fighting measures.

Re: Adfree Cities

#183

Post by legitster »

digging wrote: post #179
legitster wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that some billboards are real road hazards. But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. SF is actually the example I had in mind because they do a good job of keeping them away from the scenic areas - but the whole downtown core is already such a dump that I really don't mind the advertisements. I think you are also discounting how weird SF ads are - as…

> But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped though. It's not worth the increased danger. Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise featureless void, but I think people are ei…

No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate.

Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.

Re: Adfree Cities

#184

Post by everdrive »

paxys wrote: post #165
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.

I won't pay somebody who would attempt to force to show me ads. Youtube's approach is much more appropriate: deny access to the site. I'm not owed content, but no one has the right to force me to view content either.

Re: Adfree Cities

#185

Post by JAlexoid »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #166
okr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has little to do with advertising.

Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol.

Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.

Re: Adfree Cities

#186

Post by JAlexoid »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #169
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, n…

If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as well. (But they aren't)

Re: Adfree Cities

#188

Post by H8crilA »

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.

No, there are many ways to generate revenue to pay for things like that at a (local) government level. Your city sold the ad space and immediately bought an essentially unrelated service (bike sharing) from the same party.

Re: Adfree Cities

#189

Post by JAlexoid »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #37
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…

For me, the ads in Tokyo are unfamiliar, so I can enjoy the colors and energy more. vs say Times Square, where the ads really hit me over the head.

Times Sq is literally the extreme side of ads. It's literally what makes Times Sq - Time Square.

Imagine if NYC banned all visual advertising? One of the most iconic sites of NYC would just disappear.

Re: Adfree Cities

#190

Post by renewiltord »

Y_Y wrote: post #125
celestialcheese wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

These are assertions but that's insufficient to make policy. To make policy you often need to tie things together because constituencies will want to keep net costs low as they trial programs.
Post reply on HN