Adfree Cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Adfree Cities

#201

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #186

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Actually, there is evidence that removing signs in some conditions make streets safer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...

Re: Adfree Cities

#202

Post by BizarreByte » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

triyambakam wrote: post #171

I live on an implicitly ad free island in the Pacific. You might figure out where but I'm being vague for privacy. In any case, I don't believe there is any law against e.g. billboards here, but there definitely aren't any. I really appreciate it. When I've driven in e.g. California I feel so depressed seeing all the billboards.

I lived on an island (not in the pacific) where billboards are completely banned, the height of business signs is limited, and where very, very few public places had any advertisements, even in the "city".

It was wonderful and it's one thing I really miss.

Re: Adfree Cities

#203

Post by dantyti » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

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 wholeheartedly agree. Furthermore, we now have ads that are giant flashy LED screens at the busiest intersections.

The most distracting thing you could think of (flashy ads) at.the.busiest.intersection... really gets on my nerve

Also, I think this is also a matter of accessibility: these ad vendors are endangering drivers with various health or mental conditions/disorders (e.g., ADD, ADHD, AS).

Re: Adfree Cities

#204

Post by rurp » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

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…

> Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop.

It's interesting to me that you connect these things so strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems inseparable from normal business. Fortunately it is quite possible to have vibrant free markets in areas that are not plastered in corporate advertisements.

Re: Adfree Cities

#205

Post by WWLink » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

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…

I don't know. I think there are differences. Like ads on the front of a store (advertising things sold in said store), vs ads when you go to use the gosh darn toilet and a video starts talking to you while you're sitting there.

Re: Adfree Cities

#206

Post by dantyti » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #196

anonporridge wrote: post #46

I've had friends observe that I'm sometimes extremely oblivious to public signage that gives important information that I should really be paying attention to, or looking around lost to figure out my way when a directing sign is right in my face. Perhaps some of that is that my head is too much in the clouds, but I suspect a huge part of it is that the overabundance of ads everywhere trying to manufacture desire has…

> noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high Even if you remove ads, it's not going to change significantly.

I've read your comment and looked at some photos of Times Square and the Piccadilly Circus. Hard disagree.

Re: Adfree Cities

#207

Post by marssaxman » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #195

Nagyman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable. > Vulnerable people do and always will exist. Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be he…

> It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable. It seems that you think that banning some ads will make any difference. Ads are really poor at actually convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking... and even then, it's not at 0 today. You will not want to go to McDon…

If advertising has so little effect on our behavior as you suppose, surely there can be little harm done by forbidding billboards, as this would force the companies who purchase those ads to save money they are currently wasting.

Re: Adfree Cities

#208

Post by dantyti » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

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?

The consumer is paying for the ads in the end. This just cuts out the grifters in the middle.

Re: Adfree Cities

#209

Post by matheusmoreira » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

docdeek wrote: post #41

amadeuspagel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.

The ad space exists and the city owns all the ad space. They either get in the business of pricing it and selling it themselves, or they contract that business out. In this case, a condition of the contract was you have to pay for the bike scheme.

It's not "ad space", it's our cities. Why is it even possible for them to "sell ad space" to private business? Should be made illegal.

We want to live in nice towns not in cyberpunk hellscapes where we can't even cross a street without being violently bombarded with advertising. A business should be able to put up a sign on its own building and that's about it.

Re: Adfree Cities

#210

Post by legitster » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

rurp wrote: post #204

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…

> Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop. It's interesting to me that you connect these things so strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems inseparable from normal busine…

I'm was only being a little flip there. Taken straight from their website:

> We see the fight against billboards as part of a wider struggle for social, ecological and economic justice.

So to be completely fair, I am responding to the case that they are making that combatting billboards is just one piece of an intersectional fight against corporations and injustice.