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

211–220 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#211

Post by ThinkBeat »

arketyp wrote: post #33
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…

They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them. Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question. Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up to the person. Are we so incapacitated we…

> They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I DO-NOT want them.

People also want pr0n. Should we paste it all over?

But then all ads are pr0n.

They use vulgar manipulative displays to make you lust and desire something usually with overly attractive people.

pr0n feels more honest in a way.

Re: Adfree Cities

#212

Post by dantyti »

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…

>If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad?

Yes, it intrudes into a person's thought pattern with the explicit goal of selling you a product/service/idea. I'd much rather stare at a wall and continue with my thought or look at a work of art (which 99.99% of ads are not, imho).

> 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!

So why not put up a non-distracting work of art? Have ads become the only visual expression allowed in public?

Re: Adfree Cities

#213

Post by dantyti »

legitster wrote: post #210
rurp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, yes. Previously, anyone could put up a poster on a public Morris column in my city, now all the public space is owned by jcdecaux.

Re: Adfree Cities

#214

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

Because advertisers think their concerns over their profits override literally everything. How will the poor corporations make money if they can't flood people's senses with bullshit information they don't want or need?

Driving accidents? Small price to pay, the Instagram model needs followers for her fashion business so it's totally fine for an ad depicting her in a bikini to be placed right in front of a dangerous roundabout where accidents happen on a monthly basis. I wish I was kidding, that exact ad is located just over 1 kilometer away from my house. I should take a picture of it.

Re: Adfree Cities

#215

Post by 2cynykyl »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59
jmugan wrote: post #13

I think of it as "stealing" my attention. Instead of enjoying blue sky as my thoughts wander peacefully, someone takes this from me to yell that I should buy a new widget.

Not just your attention. Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the person you could be if you bought their product. That is, it attempts to steal your satisfaction, and then offers to sell it back to you. Quoting from memory, and I don't remember who I'm quoting, so I can't give credit where due. I didn't originate the thought, or even the wording. But it has stuck with me, because it explains what…

I'm turning this concept into my new life motto, thank you! (Not that I needed it, I'm already so anti ads). Anyway, if you ever remember the source please post it back here.

Re: Adfree Cities

#216

Post by PeterisP »

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 haven't been to Tokyo, however, could it depend on the local focus of the ads?

I.e. I'd consider visual advertising that draws attention to stuff that is right there (e.g. suggesting to visit the store, bar or show behind the door that's below the advert) as completely different as the same size ad for something that's not relevant to physically being then and there (e.g. a car or insurance).

Re: Adfree Cities

#217

Post by xboxnolifes »

willmadden wrote: post #191
_dain_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists. Almost every employer and the government needs roads to operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society functioning. You would have no food, water, or electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.

The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits everyone you just listed.

Re: Adfree Cities

#218

Post by matheusmoreira »

dantyti wrote: post #200
5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #156

I've been on a tear blocking absolutely all ads in my life, and it has made my life so much more serene and peaceful. The one thing I cannot do anything about is ads in the physical space, which sucks, so this initiative is right up my alley. I'm not in UK, but all I can say is godspeed to this initiative.

IRL ad blocking is the only use case that would make me consider using AR

The killer app for smart glasses. I want this so much.

Re: Adfree Cities

#219

Post by GuB-42 »

This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves.

Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels, I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to influence people.

I understand that even anti-ad groups need to advertise themselves, but really, I would have preferred if they could show more actual ad removal and less ad replacement.

Re: Adfree Cities

#220

Post by lancesells »

GuB-42 wrote: post #219

This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves. Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels, I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to influence people. I understand that even anti-ad grou…

I would also prefer they weren't loading scripts from the biggest ad company in the world (Google).
Post reply on HN