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

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#271

Post by JAlexoid »

digging wrote: post #239
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...

Considering most of my arguments are self-evident, no. I'm not going to provide research to prove that... let's see, "bumper stickers are attached to cars," or that "official road signs are easy to read at a glance." Try providing some evidence of how "highly regulated" billboard distraction levels are and I might take this conversation seriously.

"Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed. However, this review’s findings suggest that this 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, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/

> official road signs are easy to read at a glance

They aren't. Specially in the UK.

Re: Adfree Cities

#272

Post by JAlexoid »

orange-mentor wrote: post #257
JAlexoid wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Real New Yorkers kind of loathe Times Square.

We do. And my office used to be at Bryant Park... I spent a year not stepping into Times Sq, while working right next to it.

Re: Adfree Cities

#274

Post by helen___keller »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #222
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…

Ads in commercial buildings aren't actually ads, they're just information. You walked into a store to see products so the store is merely showing you what you want to see, organized so you can find what you want. Nothing wrong with a sign showing people the name of a business on its own building either, those are actually useful, even for navigation and orientation. Advertising is when they bombard you with noisy inf…

> We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.

We can ban ads in certain location/manner/topic but not blanket ban all advertising speech, which would be a 1st amendment issue (and sort of a moot point, it would be politically impossible for something that broad and destructive).

You can get ads off the bus itself but you can’t get ads off the YouTube app the guy next to you is staring at, or the branded swag (that functions as an ad) that this person is wearing.

Re: Adfree Cities

#275

Post by atdrummond »

lancesells wrote: post #221
ponector wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service. My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.

I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low income gets them, they get the same importance as the train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of having to use the Lyft or any other app.

Kids already get to use Citi bikes for free, as long as they’re part of certain privileged classes (such as asylum seekers or border crossers).

The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.

Re: Adfree Cities

#276

Post by felurx »

okr wrote: post #248
paxys wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lots of people spend money on their hobbies, including art, including art that is meant for others to see and appreciate.

Also, promotion of culture (for example funded by taxes at national or city level) is a thing.

One example, I know of a few graffiti walls near where I live. I'm not sure if the city just allowed the graffitis and the artists paid for supplies themselves of if the city provided them too. I've even heard of cities hiring artists for that.

Sure, electronics are more expensive than spray paint, but definitely not to the point where none of these models could work. Have you ever been at a maker faire? It's amazing what people build (and are willing to spend) just for the heck of creating stuff.

Re: Adfree Cities

#277

Post by JambalayaJim »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #136
JambalayaJim wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local businesses would benefit substantially from the bikeshare service though.

Not if that bikeshare service captures all their profits by having a monopoly on ads.

That makes no sense. Most local businesses don’t even have ads on bus stops. Let alone that being where most of their profits are invested???

Re: Adfree Cities

#278

Post by _dain_ »

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 same logic applies to railways, airports, cargo ships.
Post reply on HN