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

241–250 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#241

Post by Zanni »

sunday_serif wrote: post #23

Not so long ago, I was traveling around Switzerland. During my time in the country, there was always something just a little off, and I couldn’t place what it was. Was it cleaner? Was the architecture just very modernist? Did it have something to do with the season? Eventually, I realized that the difference I was noticing between Switzerland and California (my home state) was that there was simply much less advertis…

Hawaii has a "no billboards" law [0] (as do Maine, Vermont and Alaska). I think this is a cleaner, better statement than "ad-free city," which is obviously far overstating the case and paradoxically doesn't even ban billboards (they're still allowed for non-corporate advertising).

[0] https://movingtokona.com/why-there-are-no-billboards-in-hawa...

Re: Adfree Cities

#242

Post by digging »

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.

Then let private motorists pay their share of the upkeep. I'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.

Re: Adfree Cities

#243

Post by vlovich123 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #199
vlovich123 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. They’re also lit up like crazy and are an extra hazard at night not to mention the light pollution. Advertising for local events should be allowed under some carve out but it would be nice if the vast majority of ads died as they’re not that. Here in SF for example when entering or leaving the city the ads are full of coke, Disney, Apple or Google phones, or variou…

> Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. And you have any kind of conclusive evidence to this claim?

Have you actually tried a search online before making this comment? I put some links in another comment but it took longer for you to post that comment than to find the relevant studies.

Re: Adfree Cities

#244

Post by vlovich123 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #235
scotty79 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a negative sum game. I'd happily ban all advertising and replaced it with government managed services and products dictionary where suppliers would put their offers with prices. It would also be a hub of technical information about the products and their reviews. Also information about companies operating on the market. Conduct, ownership structure, financial information, everything. Basically all the market inf…

And then the likes of Donald comes in and decides, that anyone that didn't support his campaign isn't worthy to be listed in the government "dictionary"(it's directory). Yeah... I'll live with bad advertising, rather than pave the way to 1984.

Advertising has nothing to do with political speech, free speech, or whether or not you can have a business. I think it’s a leap to claim that regulating and restricting some forms of commercial speech (equally across the board for all players btw) is on the road to 1984.

Re: Adfree Cities

#245

Post by digging »

JAlexoid wrote: post #226
bondarchuk wrote: post #116

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. Do you really see the removal of advertising from public space as this much of a threat to your way of life? Your sarcastic remark about ending consumerism and society sounds quite hateful towards people who don't want to see advertising, whereas (speaking from myself at…

If you don't want to see X, you just have to no look. Being offended by X, doesn't mean that you have an inherent right to ban X. X throughout the times were/are ads, black people, campaign billboards, crossdressing and Pride parades. Every time someone says "it should be banned, because I don't want to see it in public" is eerily reminiscent of the arguments of homophobes that I hear all the time. "I don't want to s…

I knew you were a troll.

Re: Adfree Cities

#246

Post by [deleted] »

moolcool wrote: post #114
germandiago wrote: post #67

This is totally double-edged. We get information from the environment as well. If advertisements get forbidden they could easily get replaced by "good things to do" monopoly gobernments. Namely, propaganda. Also, ads make life for many people. I think regulation is enough. Forbiding would be harmful IMHO as a whole.

> Also, ads make life for many people. What?

[deleted]

Re: Adfree Cities

#247

Post by JAlexoid »

vlovich123 wrote: post #236
JAlexoid wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can surely provide some kind of research, that can support your argument... right? It's not just your opinion based on...

I might find this counter at all interesting if not for: A) it stands to reason that if phones are distracting so are billboards which are literally designed to get your attention B) a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation. As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe? https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distrac…

>it stands to reason that if phones are distracting

The action of using your phone is distracting, not that phones are distracting. You can absolutely use your phone as a GPS. The process of interaction is the distracting part.

>literally designed to get your attention

The NIH article actually says literally the opposite, of what you're saying. Billboards aren't distracting enough to completely draw your attention.

>a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation.

No... No it doesn't. As evidenced by the results you provided. One talks about safety billboards and the other literally says the opposite of your claim.

And I quote: "Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed."

>As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe?

Yes. You definitely should note just make un-appealable claim without knowing the reasons for it. Your argument that billboards are a safety hazard is just your opinion, that has more evidence against than for.

Re: Adfree Cities

#248

Post by okr »

paxys wrote: post #160
okr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, i have experienced socialist and communist countries, and i never want to go back to this cold, adfree world with its purely functional esthetics. I can understand the aversion for the Ad-Overload, but no Ads, nah, i want it colorful, shiny and blinking. :)

Is there really no form of public expression you can think of other than commercial advertising?

No. Because there is no intention for it, as someone has to pay for it. And who has money to spare? Not the poor. The rich ones, maybe. But they think often economical, otherwise they would not be rich. Or the ones, who can take money from others and redistribute it. Or churches, for example. Have built fantastic buildings.

Re: Adfree Cities

#249

Post by amadeuspagel »

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.

How can a city own all the ad space when there's private property? What stops a property owner from putting up a billboard and renting it out?

Re: Adfree Cities

#250

Post by MichaelZuo »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #249
docdeek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can a city own all the ad space when there's private property? What stops a property owner from putting up a billboard and renting it out?

Laws against privately putting up a billboard anywhere that can be seen from a public space, without prior municipal approval.
Post reply on HN