61–70 of 71 posts
Ads are influencing us to buy things we don't need! This is terrible! [Billboards stop targeting you at all.] Ads no longer influence us to buy things we don't need! This is terrible! Just take the win.
SF is always on the brink of death from one thing or another. Has to be the most melodramatic populace in America. I’ve lived here for 13 years, my wife for 20. It’s the same as always. We saw a Sees Candies : No AI needed billboard yesterday. Thought that was funny.
You might like this prank billboard that’s up: https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/prank-san-francisc...
This is some low quality bait.
My favorite billboard was in Silicon Valley, not SF, back in the early 90s when people around here still cared about technology: “high speed analog simulation.” If you needed that, the billboard was for you! Nobody complained. The same year I decided my company would show job ads before the movies at century 16 (next to where Google now is). The lady who took the ss ws dubious, but our first (“can you program in C++? Looking for a job? Write to jobs@cygnus.com). It made the NYT, but then became commonplace and now nobody looks for jobs that way. Sic transit gloria mundi
* I assume this is a service that teaches them empathy and how to listen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't in california, actually. While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
What if we got a proposition that said we have to take them all down and not pay for lost revenue?
I believe regulatory changes similar to what you propose have been ruled takings in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the state would lose, but this supreme court doesn’t seem particularly amenable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's related to the K shaped economy. The country is no longer being built for the middle class, which is concerning.
I think you're on to something. It's really concerning that the people with the money to run these ad campaigns are so removed from the bulk of the populace that they don't even bother targeting them with all the billboards anymore, just each other. Otoh maybe I'm looking at it wrong, and maybe billboard advertising has gotten so ineffective that it's cheapened to the point that you can tuck it into your campaign as…
I wonder if it's so some brand manager can put "78% of XX managers have heard of our brand" on a slide after running a survey near the billboard
"Killing SF" is overly dramatic, and others have noted that the phenomenon observed here is not unique to AI, or SF. But there is something a little...alienating about advertising that's not meant for you. It's a dumb example, but in Pittsburgh the football stadium was renamed from Heinz Field to Acrisure Stadium. Of course, "Three Rivers Stadium", the name of the previous building, was best. It's not a name that tri…
Heinz just sells diabetes & fatty liver disease and packages it as a staple of american cuisine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't in california, actually. While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
You can actually just eliminate existing ones. The government can just do things and absolutely already does whenever politicians really want something to happen (data centers, etc.). There's no law of nature that billboards must be allowed to remain where they are.
It's not a government problem - it's a constitutional one - Banning existing billboards is considered both a first amendment problem, and a takings problem.
Doing it without compensation is a constitutional violation, and even if california modified it's constitution, it would be a federal one. Less of one for sure, but still an issue.
The current law (Business & Professions Code § 5412) is a codification of what the court requires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't in california, actually. While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
Ban new ones and that will naturally go extinct
They have not gone extinct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't in california, actually. While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
What if we got a proposition that said we have to take them all down and not pay for lost revenue?
Business & Professions Code § 5412 is the current controlling statute, and that is a codification of what the courts have required.
That requirement is not just a california constitutional problem, but a federal one.
So even if you modified the california constitution, you'd still have the federal problem.
The federal problem is much less than the state one (SCOTUS has found the floor here to be quite low), but it's still bad enough that feds require compensation as well. Just less compensation.
For example, 23 U.S.C. § 131(g) conditions federal highway funds on paying just compensation for removals along Interstate and federal-aid primary highways — 10% of apportionment forfeited otherwise.
I looked into this quite heavily, and had long discussions with legislators, because there was a huge ugly billboard 150 feet from my house in San Jose :)