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

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#261

Post by ChiMan »

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…

Tokyo is jam-packed with ads and loads of neon. When I lived there, I loved the visual effect. It brought the city to life and visually reaffirmed the economic bedrock of any modern city: Commerce.

Re: Adfree Cities

#263

Post by juanpicardo »

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.…

it is absolutely possible to achieve the same without ads. your city simply does not want to do it.

Re: Adfree Cities

#264

Post by amadeuspagel »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #250
amadeuspagel wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the monopoly isn't just there because the city happens to own all the existing ad space, but is rather something legally created, and then sold to a private company.

Re: Adfree Cities

#265

Post by massysett »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #262
massysett wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military is a wee bit more necessary than getting rid of billboards, just ask Ukraine.

[flagged]

Exactly, and while you’re at it, add a few more million to get rid of billboards - money that could have been spent on hunger, or health.

Re: Adfree Cities

#266

Post by germandiago »

maxwell wrote: post #89
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.

Any signs of this in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, or Maine, where billboards have been banned since 1977 and earlier?

Not an american. Probably we live in different realities regarding this topic.

Re: Adfree Cities

#267

Post by MichaelZuo »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #264
MichaelZuo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the monopoly isn't just there because the city happens to own all the existing ad space, but is rather something legally created, and then sold to a private company.

Well yes, everything in a city is 'legally created'.

Re: Adfree Cities

#268

Post by JAlexoid »

digging wrote: post #245
JAlexoid wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right.

Because no one can ever have an opinion that is opposite to you and your claims never require evidence to back them up.

Calling someone a troll, because you just throw out absurd claims expecting everyone to take your word for it - is quite arrogant.

Re: Adfree Cities

#269

Post by JAlexoid »

vlovich123 wrote: post #244
JAlexoid wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was responding to the proposal to have a government run directory, to replace all and any advertising.

Advertising is also a matter of freedom of speech. Political speech is absolutely advertising... and a business exists exclusively based on the ability to disseminate information about the existence of a business (aka advertising)

What is "commercial speech"?

It's one thing to talk about billboards, that take up public space... and advertising in general.

Re: Adfree Cities

#270

Post by JAlexoid »

vlovich123 wrote: post #258
JAlexoid wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. >…

I mean the NIH conclusion is literally: > However, this review’s findings suggest that this [billboards are not a distraction] may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, drive…

> Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous

Do I need to explain that looking at a billboard and interacting with you phone are wildly different activities? Do we need to discuss the differences between terms passive and active?

Equating glancing at billboards(less than 1 sec) and texting(on average 5 seconds) - requires ignoring the basic principles behind those two actions.

Texting requires your visual attention, your fine motor functions and your mental abilities engaged.

Looking at a few words and an image requires considerably less engagement.

https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texti...

> And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones

Of course they are. But distracting and hazard are two very different things. Many things are distracting, but aren't a hazard.

And your other link actually shows how different are things on the road that require active attention(active safety notices) vs things that are just informative(signs and billboards).

And if you made a claim that video billboards are likely to be too distracting, instead of generalizing that all billboards are a safety hazard - I wouldn't even engaged. As it stands, your position of "all billboards are a safety hazard" is just an opinion - with evidence to the contrary.

Post reply on HN