Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

bearbin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 633 posts

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#191

Post by Symbiote »

rambambram wrote: post #108
habosa wrote: post #102

I can’t stand ads on government property, particularly in spaces where I am captive. The best example is public transportation. There are ads all over the station and then ads all over the interior (and exterior) of the train/bus during your ride. Why should I be subjected to this private noise while taking public transportation? Some city needs to stand up and fix this. Allow me to get where I am going in peace.

Exactly. I can stand ads on the internet, I just block 'm. I can stand ads on private property. But just don't scream for my attention on (semi)public properties. The price of that sh!t is already covered by taxes. And if it's not, the officials are incompetent.

Transport for London (9000 buses, 985 trains, trams, hire bicycles, taxi administration, disabled people transport, some trains, some major roads in London, 755km of railway track) have a budget of £9.7 billion, of which £5.1 billion is from passengers (tickets etc), and £0.16 billion from advertising.

That is lower than I thought it would be, and lower than one would expect given the space TfL dedicate to advertising in their budget report.

I would pay 3% more on travel tickets to not have any advertising.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2020-21.pdf (this is pre-Covid.)

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#192

Post by blackhaz »

agumonkey wrote: post #105
blackhaz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they do. You have to mentally process the incoming data first, then discard it. It's a waste of attention, especially with mind-catching ads you can't figure out immediately. Sometimes they are as blocking as browser pop-ups, e.g.: logotypes (or even full ads) displayed before a responsive UI is shown to you, duty-free zones in the airports, and so on. I am pretty sure we will soon have real-life targeted billboa…

There's something different about streets and web. I'm not sure but on my laptop i kinda expect things to go to the point, fast. A street is not a mean to an end. So a bus stop with some ad.. doesn't really changes everything. Consider web ads more like annoying bus boys trying to get you to order something in their restaurant by stepping in front of you and mirroring every move.

A street is as much a mean to an end as a laptop. I use streets to get from point A to point B, much like you use your laptop to arrive from state A to state B. I never have an intention to see ads when I go outside. Sometimes I use streets for fun, to stroll without aim, but never I go outside to "see some ads," much like you likely never open your laptop with an intention to see an ad.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#193

Post by kdmccormick »

323 wrote: post #167
kdmccormick wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you gaining by arguing this? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think an artist who hand-paints pieces on walls is comparable to a corporation that copy-pastes their flashing, carefully targeted, profit-seeking message onto dozens of billboards overlooking a highway? Are their motives and the results of their work not wildly different? Your second example is valid. But your first example is a c…

A lot of times people who loudly yell "fuck the system" are also quietly using the system when it suits them, that's my point. Bansky is no "dismantle the capitalism" hero or whatever pedestal people have him on.

I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. But I think it's worth maintaining that (1) some things are worse than other things and (2) motive matters and (3) imperfect people can still make good points.

I have never, ever felt like a piece of Banksy's art, or any original piece of visual artwork for that matter, is being shoved down my throat. They're quiet, static, relatively low in number, and easily avoidable & ignorable. I've never felt distracted or distressed because my local coffee shop has a new mural on their wall, and nobody has ever forced me to walk through an art museum in order to get to the grocery store. On the other hand, advertisements are loud, moving, insanely numerous, and totally non-optional. My local subway and subway stations are plastered in advertisements; if I want to transit anywhere, I must endure them.

Plus, the motives are different! Sure, Banksy or $artist_name likely want folks to find their art appealing and then compensate them somehow, via buying copies, commissioning new art, spreading their reputation, whatever. But advertisers do not care if you found their ad appealing; they just want you to buy their product. In fact, many ads are purposely obnoxious or abhorrent just because it's an effective way to bring your attention towards their product. How dystopian is that?

And yes, there's some irony in Banksy, as someone who occasionally benefits from copyright law, to be making this point. But that doesn't make him wrong! And, it'd be far more ironic if, I don't know, Sergey Brin or someone else who use hugely benefited from advertising and copyright law were making the point.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#194

Post by wowokay »

Nextgrid wrote: post #133
jtbayly wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The difference is that his "ad" is relevant; you are on a comment thread about ads reading his (relevant) reply, similar to seeing an ad about a phone in a phone store. In contrast, ads in most public places are completely irrelevant and unwelcome.

Idk, I have never been upset about ads in real life, I wouldn't consider most if any as unwanted.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#195

Post by Nextgrid »

IvanK_net wrote: post #171
Nextgrid wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you see someone willing to give you a car (or anything else), but they want money in exchange (i.e. sell it to you), you understand, that it is wrong to take the car without giving them money (i.e. stealing). Someone selling goods has to abide by some laws - typically, lies/false advertising is prohibited, they might have to provide a warranty, and most contracts can be cancelled within 14 days by returning th…

Nobody cares what your opinion about the ad is. If you do not like the "cost" of the item (watching a minute of an ad, to see a 10 second video), just go somewhere else to find an alternative. Or buy it once and never again. What you are saying is, basically, if someone is selling bread for $100, and they dont let you taste in advance, you are allowed to steal that bread, because $100 is not a right price for the bre…

Not liking the cost implies knowing the cost in advance. Does your website disclose that it's ad-supported, which data will be collected and how it will be used (which is required if your are based in the EU or offer service to EU-based customers) and whether you take responsibility for any ill effects from executing the ad code? Because otherwise it can be argued you are also "stealing" people's computing resources and personal data before they could make a conscious decision to "pay".

> steal

Theft implies that you are deprived of the item once it's stolen - this is not the case here, and the costs should be taken into account either way. You're comparing fractions of a cent from an ad view with $100. I'd feel much better about stealing the former than the latter even in case of actual, physical theft.

> they dont let you taste in advance

It doesn't have an impact on the "theft" scenario, but in case of a paid product I would still expect a refund if the bread is defective (moldy or fake) or was mis-sold with false advertising.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#196

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #109
marcosdumay wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very effective way to solve problems in a community resource is to demand maintenance from a private party in exchange from exploiting it in a sustainable way. São Paulo just closed that possibility. Yes, there are other possibilities. By nature those are more bureaucratic and jittery. Maybe they are closer to a solution now, but if that's the case, it's because it easier to make that law more relaxed than strict.

I consider solving a problem directly to be less bureaucratic than solving it indirectly by involving even more parties and hoping they do what you want them to do and having to negotiate with them on how much they will do in exchange for what they are getting. Taxpayer pays x to government which pays workers to clean. Taxpayer pays x-y to government which pays x-y to government workers who need to go out and negotia…

[deleted]

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#197

Post by ghusbands »

smarx007 wrote: post #7

But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day. There is no analogy to interstitial pages with ads like in Forbes some time ago with the button Continue to your article: it would be infuriating if you had to view an ad before being able to use the subway ticketing system. You also don’t have ads on at the airport timetable screen. You don’t have pinkertons following you to learn your habits and sho…

One big problem with your argument is that the word "yet" should be added almost everywhere. And in fact other responses have pointed out that there are plenty of places where ads are delaying interactive purchases. It's only a matter of time until it is in almost all the places you mentioned.

For as long as there's no good pushback/regulation, there'll always be someone willing to pay to insert ads somewhere and someone willing to accept their money, because there's almost no immediate downside and the amount of money offered keeps going up until you fold. It happens continually, everywhere, that more and more ads, and more and more intrusive ones, keep appearing, and defending the status quo won't help us.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#198

Post by KptMarchewa »

marcosdumay wrote: post #96
Krasnol wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now they can work on that instead of hiding it behind billboards. You're closer to a solution now.

A very effective way to solve problems in a community resource is to demand maintenance from a private party in exchange from exploiting it in a sustainable way. São Paulo just closed that possibility. Yes, there are other possibilities. By nature those are more bureaucratic and jittery. Maybe they are closer to a solution now, but if that's the case, it's because it easier to make that law more relaxed than strict.

>Yes, there are other possibilities. By nature those are more bureaucratic and jittery.

Not really. The biggest corruption, waste of money and worst outcomes are when private and public sector intersect. Pure public (like healthcare systems outside US) or private (like food distribution) segments work best.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#199

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

throwawaycities wrote: post #163
Miner49er wrote: post #116

Reminds me of this Banksy quote: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most…

Seems like perfectly curated marketing. But I do admit I am outraged when a row of stupid fucking scooters blocks my entire running path, when it’s clearly a location no one would ever rent a scooter, rather they are there to deliberately block the path for no other purpose than obnoxious exposure of their brand. I’d love for there to be DAOs to combat those scooter companies, say for example by blocking the executiv…

Aggressively move the scooters out of the way: https://youtu.be/ab9TYsIItyM

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#200

Post by watwut »

323 wrote: post #169
Retric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see nothing hypocritical about either of those. The vandal wasn’t sued by the artist who may have approved. In the second case I find greeting cars as objectionable as street billboards.

So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that?

> Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"?

Yes. I like Banksy drawings, really. But Banksy was vandal when Banksy drew his thing on the same wall again and again, while owner quite clearly did not wanted that and kept repainting the wall again again. And to be frank, he was also asshole about it.

Banksy can be both and is both.

Post reply on HN