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

191–200 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#191

Post by willmadden »

_dain_ wrote: post #181
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes. [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited: Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]

>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.

Re: Adfree Cities

#192

Post by jefftk »

H8crilA wrote: post #188
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.…

> This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. No, there are many ways to generate revenue to pay for things like that at a (local) government level. Your city sold the ad space and immediately bought an essentially unrelated service (bike sharing) from the same party.

> immediately bought an essentially unrelated service

At least the way it works here (Boston area's Bluebikes) is that the same infrastructure supports both the bike sharing and the ad space. There are ads on the bikes and their docks.

Re: Adfree Cities

#193

Post by tayo42 »

visarga wrote: post #80
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 personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo) Tokyo is visually interesting so could get an exemption. But ads look much uglier in other places, here's a sample: https://imgur.com/a/6AOWmdC

It dont think that Tokyo picture is full of ads. While I can't read Japanese, from my trip there, those were mostly listing the stores in the building.

Re: Adfree Cities

#194

Post by jefftk »

j_maffe wrote: post #141
okr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.

The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.

> ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich

This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.

Re: Adfree Cities

#195

Post by JAlexoid »

Nagyman wrote: post #108
digging wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do suggest you read the FAQ page on the linked site because it answers all of your disagreements. In particular: > Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Modern ads are so effective at exploiting our minds that their existence is enough to drive our purchases. You don't even have to be aware of them. > personal responsibility is never the an…

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable. > Vulnerable people do and always will exist. Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be he…

> It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

It seems that you think that banning some ads will make any difference. Ads are really poor at actually convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking... and even then, it's not at 0 today.

You will not want to go to McDonalds, just because you saw an ad for it. You first will have to find it acceptable to go to a fast food restaurant, which is shaped by culture. Then the ad may result in you choosing to go to McDonalds.... but at that point you've already chosen to go to a fast food restaurant.

Re: Adfree Cities

#196

Post by JAlexoid »

anonporridge wrote: post #46

I've had friends observe that I'm sometimes extremely oblivious to public signage that gives important information that I should really be paying attention to, or looking around lost to figure out my way when a directing sign is right in my face. Perhaps some of that is that my head is too much in the clouds, but I suspect a huge part of it is that the overabundance of ads everywhere trying to manufacture desire has…

> noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high

Even if you remove ads, it's not going to change significantly.

Re: Adfree Cities

#197

Post by dantyti »

franga2000 wrote: post #153
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.…

We have something similar and it was a terrible deal. The city still had to pay a boatload of money to set up the system, but it's proprietary so we can only "buy" more stations and bikes from the same company. They, of course, refuse to sell at a reasonable price, so for every new station, more ad space is created and given to them. The term of the contract, which is 25 years, is also insanely long and far longer th…

The same thing in my city with jcd bikes: no new stations in a decade, only a handful of bikes available, bike stop density nowhere near anything I've seen in a large city in Southern France. Meanwhile, every bus stop, every street corner or prominent billboard is owned by jcd.

Your comment has encouraged me to dig up anything I can find about our municipality's contracts with jcd during the upcoming holiday break and, if it's anything like what you've said, raise some awareness.

Re: Adfree Cities

#198

Post by rurp »

JAlexoid wrote: post #186
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the same lecture in driver's ed, but let's be honest: that was never accurate. It's perfectly fine to talk to someone while you're driving, or to adjust the volume on the radio real quick. I imagine that the lectures given to teens learning to drive are motivated by the fact that new drivers need to focus more, and are stubborn so they need to have the point driven home harder. For a responsible adult driver, n…

If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as well. (But they aren't)

Road signs provide information for roads to function properly, so even if they are a distraction the tradeoff is worth it. Billboards provide no such utility, they only impose costs on drivers for the benefit of ad companies and their customers.

Re: Adfree Cities

#199

Post by JAlexoid »

vlovich123 wrote: post #111
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…

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?

Re: Adfree Cities

#200

Post by dantyti »

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
Post reply on HN