14 ms·

French cities trying to ban public adverts

324 points by Vinnl 7y ago

colejohnson66 7y ago
A general sentiment I see here is that ads should be banned, but what can be done in the US? The First Amendment protects truthful advertisements. In addition, we have the FTC for misleading and lying ads (although their success is not what it should be (case in point: OutBrain and Taboola)). So, what do we do? Further reading on the 1st Amendment and advertising: http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electric_Corp._v._Public_Service_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electri...
- eugeniub 7y ago
  Generally, the first amendment restricts the ability to enact laws banning certain types of ads over other ads, but not laws banning all ads from certain areas. For example, four states — Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine — have banned billboard advertisements.[1] Vermont was the first to ban them in 1968[2] and these laws haven't been challenged on first amendment grounds, though presumably their passages were fought. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billboards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billbo... [2]: https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-and-sign-control/ https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-...
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I should clarify the parent post - when they said "types of ads", what they really meant is the content. The 1st amendment forbids the government from discriminating on the content of a message, but they can restrict messaging in general. Though I believe there are limits to how much they can restrict that as well - a blanket ban on protests, for example, would likely not fly.
- munk-a 7y ago
  There is no part of the 1st Amendment that states that people need to read your advertising, additionally some states (like VT) have full bans on billboards - regardless of the reasoning for this that ban has been upheld and private citizens can't compel the state to allow placement of billboards on public property - there are also various style related laws (in Boston you need a special permit when constructing on Beacon Hill that makes it very difficult to build non-brick faced buildings) there is nothing illegal at a constitutional level in either of these cases. The 1st Amendment prevents discrimination of advertising (you can't chose to disallow ads for raspberries but be all in for strawberry ads because you, the mayor, find raspberries offensive) but there is no guarantee to the right of other people's attention. Advertisements on public property can absolutely be banned and, possibly with an ordnance, I believe you could heavily restrict advertising on private property. The government can't shut you up when expressing protected speech, but it doesn't have to help you talk, nor does it have to make people listen to you.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Perhaps common law precedent screws us over. But I don't see a problem in principle following the spirit, or even word of the written law: 1) Spying ads absolutely are more than speech: the information flow is bidirectional, and the 1st amendment isn't a right to listen. 2) It could be argued that the state cannot sell advertisements without privileging one message over another; currently "non-political ad" rules already contested, and they are even more of laughing stock beyond that once one considers that all commerce and economic activity is political. Only laws that limit the amount of messaging rather than the content are truly unbiased. 3) For private ads, while the owner of the building owns the surface where the ad is, I don't think it is fair to say they own the sight lines to the building. The problem with ADs is they can literally leave you nowhere to look when you are moving in public spaces the advertiser definitely doesn't own. I think a comparison could be made with EM spectrum law. Just because you own the antenna doesn't mean you can broadcast whatever you like. Electric adds that have their own lighting are certainly broadcasters. And if passive things like giant RFIDs are regulated, We could probably get non-illuminated ads also to be regulated. So assuming all the above gets through the courts, we can do nothing about urinal ads in private establishments, but we can clean up public spaces completely, or at least limit them to non-illuminated ads. At that point, I hope the remaining indoor ads would be far more annoying in relative terms, and that would create some helpful economic pressure for the owner to tamp them down.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  Nobody wants ads banned. The problem is that ads are being placed into previously unused places and louder than before. The result is that all companies have to compete with these new obnoxious ads or risk falling behind their competitors that are willing to put ads in distasteful places. In my opinion, the solution is to clearly define a discrete set of spaces for ads and make sure everyone is able to compete on equal footing. It's not like these companies want to shell out more money for ads - they simply have to in order to compete. EDIT: Also the US needs to adopt Britain's ban on election ads outside of the election month. We waste a phenomenal amount of time and money on election ads that provide zero real benefit to the US.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    > Nobody wants ads banned. I want ads banned. They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling.
    - reificator 7y ago
      > > Nobody wants ads banned. > I want ads banned. > They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I'm a prolific adblocker, but I disagree with you here. I think if things were kept at a reasonable balance, advertising would be a net positive. There have been several times where I've tried new restaurants because of ads. Sometimes I'll go searching to buy a specific thing, and realize that it doesn't yet exist in the market. Then a few months or years later, I'll see an advertisement for that thing, and I'm always very appreciative. That's not to mention that if ads were banned tomorrow, the established brands would have decades of advantage built up against newcomers, becoming a self-reinforcing monopoly that I'd imagine would last decades after the last person to have seen an ad dies. And don't forget, making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away. Look at how often people accuse accounts on social media of astroturfing. Do you think that astroturfing will become more or less common after a ban on advertising? At least with ads legal I can evaluate them as ads. I can't tell which glowing reviews are legitimate and which are planted, and if you think you can I'd put money against you. > I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling. I definitely agree with you on that. The current state of ads is nothing less than an assault on people's cognitive abilities and mental health. Something needs to give here.
q845712 7y ago
It's kind of an open secret that the city of Santa Barbara (CA, US) has banned several forms of public outdoor advertising: we have no billboards, no promotional posters, no taxi toppers... It's delightful, and very high on my list of reasons why I enjoy living here. Every time I leave I'm reminded how noisy space is when it's filled with advertisements. I wholeheartedly recommend others advocate for similar policies in their municipality - it can be done!
- munk-a 7y ago
  Taxi toppers are an interesting one to ban - I suppose the city can simply refuse to license taxis that refuse to sign a contract agreeing to not use toppers but any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV - possibly... I'm not certain how a lawsuit would come down trying to determine if vehicle appearance could be restricted by a state or if that right was withheld by the federal government.
  - justin66 7y ago
    > any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV ??? The state DMV neither writes nor enforces laws.
    - whelsemin 7y ago
      Are there any government bodies between city and state level that have the power to do this? In CA, US for example. Not a quiz.
      - justin66 7y ago
        Counties can pass ordinances, if that is what you are asking.
- dominotw 7y ago
  thats nice. They prbly have a good tax base that doesn't need this extra revenue stream. property tax is decent enough revenue where median home is > 1 mil. > I enjoy living here Yea its a given that its nice to live where people earn more and live in expensive homes :D
ajna91 7y ago
I think in the near future we'll have empirical evidence that most ads are malicious exploits of flaws in human psychology. Ideally, all ads should be plain text listing of facts. Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. And they should be listed in "Ad sections", like a phone book.
- sosborn 7y ago
  > plain text listing of facts Coca-Cola tastes great! Coca-Cola gives you an extra pep in your step! Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! These are all true statements (the first one is subjective, I'll admit), but I suspect that many believe the effect of plain test listing of facts would only allow the third statement. > Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. Wouldn't a photo of someone drinking a Coke and enjoying it be allowed under this rule?
  - frenchyatwork 7y ago
    Facts and advertisements are like apples and oranges. The notion of "plain text listing of fact" is pretty vague, though I'd personally classify none of those above statements as "plain text listing of facts", and all of them could be advertisements in the right context. An advertisement is a communication designed to manipulate its recipient. Whether it's "true" or not is neither here nor there. In fact, a lot of advertisements are complete non-sequiturs, because those kinds of statements are less likely to make the listeners/viewers think critically about the statements.
  - oehpr 7y ago
    I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.
    - trophycase 7y ago
      Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is speech that would not otherwise be made if one party was not being compensated in some way or another. Obviously this definition has tons of edge cases, but it's a good starting point IMO. While all of those coca cola ads are "true", they would be limited in scope to places that coca cola owns. So no bus stations or taxi toppers or whatever, unless they buy a fleet of taxis.
redis_mlc 7y ago
For those who haven't been to Paris, there's moving/jittering electronic signs everywhere like something out of Minority Report. They're a distracting eyesore and should be banned.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Compared to most global city I've seen (NYC, Amsterdam, Zurich, German cities, Tokyo, Singapour, Bankgok, London...) I'd say Paris is of the least 'technological' kind. It's actually so distinct that as a nerd I just don't feel 'home' in France, architecturally, culturally, compared to most comparable countries/cities on any continent. France feels somewhat stuck in time, which you may not be able to tell looking at all the smartphones and 1Gb fiber, but could glimpse at by talking with enough locals: they just don't like / trust / see value in high-tech in general, more like a threat / disturbance / forced upon them). Again, this is the feeling, the mindset, not 'reality' or 'objective truth' (the French are the same as everyone else in this regard, obviously; I'm talking about perceptions here, like the fact that the French are the most pessimistic on Earth despite their incredible relative wealth (less than 1% of the world's population for 3.25% GDP) and quality of life (GINI, whatever). It's great that Paris and the French exists for those who'd rather live in a more 'vintage' environment (this can be said for a lot of European small/mid cities btw), but subjectively, France is everything but high-tech or 'nerdy' compared to Germany, UK, USA, Japan (probably topping it all), Korea, basically the world's top 10-15-20 countries (GDP per capita). Even Switzerland, which is very old-school in a lot of ways, feels more "21st century" than France in day-to-day living.
docdeek 7y ago
In Lyon the public ad space was traded to an ad company in exchange for funding and maintaining the city's public bike share scheme. It's a trade off, of course, but for just 30 euros à year I (and the rest of the city) get virtually unlimited bike share. The anti-ad groups here would be happy for the public ads to disappear but it would be a real shame if the affordable bike share went with it. FWIW there is a real debate about who got the better side of the deal between the city and the ad company, but the Velov scheme is great. :)
- magwa101 7y ago
  They wouldn't buy the advertising if they couldn't make a profit on your attention. Pay with brain space, or pay through a tax. Which is more expensive?
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    It's not the brain space that's paying for the advertising, it's your (or, well, people's) buying of the advertised products. So in addition to the costs of brain space, there are still also actual financial costs to it that are borne by the city's citizens.
    - balfirevic 7y ago
      Well they got the product they bought, so it's a stretch to consider it a cost. Perhaps only the marginal cost that went to advertising, but it's still a stretch to consider it a cost if the buyer considers they got their money's worth.
- basicplus2 7y ago
  This is what taxes are for.. ban advertising, increase taxes on these companies, and pay for the bikes with taxes
  - docdeek 7y ago
    If you ban outdoor advertising i' a city there won't be an outdoor advertising company to tax.
Scoundreller 7y ago
My money is on JCDecaux winning this battle.
faissaloo 7y ago
I can't wait for the day when we finally get rid of these coordinated assaults on our senses, both online and in the real world. Things like Ublock Origin & SponsorBlock have opened my eyes to a world without adverts.
glangdale 7y ago
Good on these guys. The French also are massive exporters of this garbage - Sydney is lousy with billboards inflicted on us by JC Decaux. Amusingly enough, the JC Decaux trucks are entirely festooned with Australian flags, which is a totally conventional for a 100% French company to use as visual elements and not deceptive at all.
BurningFrog 7y ago
OK, I'll make the case for ads: Ads are disruptive. They allow new businesses to break into markets owned by old dominant suppliers. This way they keep the market healthy and serving consumers. Based on that, you'd expect anti-ad initiatives to be aligned with powerful established industries. Not that I know how to confirm or refute that.
- lordlic 7y ago
  Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Incumbents will have more money to spend, chilling the influence of new competitors. Most of the "disruptor" success stories that come to mind started with some variation of "we didn't spend anything on advertising, relying on word of mouth."
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Not necessarily. Advertising has diminishing returns -- we know this because companies don't buy unlimited advertising. If every ad dollar was as good as the first (i.e. it generated more than a dollar in profit) then everybody would buy an unlimited amount of advertising so they could make an unlimited profit. At some point you hit saturation and it costs more than it makes you. Meanwhile the little guy needs it more because they're unknown, i.e. their baseline is further from the point of saturation so they have a higher cost/benefit ratio. If nobody advertises then people keep buying from the incumbent because they don't know of any alternatives. The biggest problem with advertising isn't big vs. little, it's that it's a signaling war. If Coke spends a dollar and Pepsi doesn't, Pepsi loses $2 in sales. But if they both spend a dollar then they've each burned a dollar only to both stay where they started. What would really help is to have some industry of trustworthy third parties whose job it is to tell you what to buy, but nobody has ever really cracked it, because the buyers don't want to pay for it and the sellers only want to pay if it will influence the results.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Advertising indeed seems to give an edge to newcomers over the incumbents, but those same "little guys" would need to advertise less if everyone's attention wasn't already saturated by everyone else's ads. Everyone is still wasting money; new players just waste less.
CptFribble 7y ago
Banning ads would be nice, but that's already old thinking. The growth of the influencer model, advertorials/newsvertising, and individual personality as brand experience means that even if all public ads were banned, brands would just be paying thousands of micro-influencers for IRL mentions, tracked silently through the mic on your phone. When you take the influencer thing to it's logical conclusion (everyone is a brand ambassador) then it becomes real murky real quick about what's an ad and what's just a person's opinion.
- na85 7y ago
  >tracked silently through the mic on your phone. Perhaps if the largest phone operating system vendor didn't have a financial incentive to weaken privacy, this would not be a problem.
- Swizec 7y ago
  > (everyone is a brand ambassador) So word of mouth? The already known highest quality way to gain new customers: friends of existing customers. All you gotta do is have a product good enough to be recommended. And maybe a nice built-in viral loop or twenty.
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  People can choose to avoid "influencers" quite easily. That 10m LED billboard down the street blasting sound, not so much.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  That's just a reason to also ban "influencing". Few other ways of advertising damage the basic fabric of society - interpersonal trust - as badly as influencers.
  - thebean11 7y ago
    How would that even work?
jeffrallen 7y ago
In Lausanne, we have "le pub vous faites de-penser" stickers on many billboards. Translation: Advertising makes you de-think (a pun on "spend")
- 7sigma 7y ago
  As a bilingual, found that one really nice. (minor nitpick: should be "la pub")
  - AntiqueFig 7y ago
    Also, if "La pub" then it should be "vous fait". Or alternatively, "Les pubs vous font".
- notaregular 7y ago
  But also most of the billboards are ads for cultural events, theatre, city-organised events, museums etc. I quite like that actually, where else would I find about some shows or things to do.
  - oska 7y ago
    > I quite like that actually, where else would I find about some shows or things to do. How about in a free magazine which advertises all such events? Or a website that does similar? Also listings of "What's On" in more general media.
    - notaregular 7y ago
      All of that is also great too, but I find it’s less of a waste to print a dozen of billboards at strategic locations vs. printing hundreds of thousands of newspapers and spam peoples mailboxes. In Lausanne specifically, those billboards are also works of art in their own right so I do enjoy them.
OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
Good on them. In Los Angeles, the tonier the neighborhood the fewer the billboards. The savagery of monster electronic signage and visual barrage increases substantially as one goes into the less affluent locations.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  Well, of course. Mental pollution is just another thing poor people are subjected to, while the executives of those same advertising companies live in suburbs without a single billboard in sight.
  - OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
    Definitely true in America's saddle point society. A certain class will always go back to equilibrium no matter the shove, the rest fall off the sides at the slightest touch. The poorer areas are subjected to architectural punishment, food as unhealthy as it is cheap, lack of investment and services, and pollution of all varieties. I see the "Cloud Minders" from the original Star Trek.
- xenospn 7y ago
  The giant jumbotrons by the airport and in Inglewood are insane.
  - OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
    You read my mind. Those are exactly the ones I was thinking of. They're expanding.
mr_custard 7y ago
Quite simply, advertising is visual pollution; whether it be on large billboards, on bus stops or freestanding in the middle of the sidewalk. It's visual pollution and it has ruined our towns and cities. I'm excited to read this article and see that people are taking a stand.
- msla 7y ago
  It's a much more literal form of pollution in mailboxes.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  The first time I started thinking about it that way was when I bought a book featuring a selection of Banksy's works [0]. In the opening pages it had a quote of him, making pretty much that point: The public space is ours. It's not their for corporations. It's to be enjoyed by the people and if you want to come in with your hands full of money to make something else of it you can fuck right off. He's a true artist. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Piece-Banksy/dp/1844137872 https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Piece-Banksy/dp/1844137872
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Banksy quote on advertising. --- 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 sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.
rdxm 7y ago
LOL, SV is literally built on toxic advertising at this point. What would happen to things like HN if people and regulatory bodies got serious about the shit-show that is internet advertising?
pastor_elm 7y ago
>'Advertising breaks your spirit' Anyone who has taken the NYC Subway understands this sentiment. The only way to avoid them is to completely close your eyes and wish you were somewhere else.
adenverd 7y ago
Bit of a crypto-tangent: more than anything else, the hope of replacing advertising as the economic engine of the Internet is why I care about the cryptocurrency space. In most cases, I think crypto is a solution looking for a problem, but the capability to trade edge compute/memory/disk/network for an ad free Internet experience would be immeasurably good for our collective mental health.
mlinksva 7y ago
I personally prefer to tax rather than ban, but good on them. What's different about the internet that has some countries trying digital services taxes rather than digital ad bans?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  My guess: no obvious immediate hazard + not enough public outrage + lots of money flowing through = countries want to tax it to capture some of that money.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
99chrisbard 7y ago
The Indian city of Chennai banned billboard advertising completely; https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/adblocking-the-global-cities-clearing-streets-of-advertising-to-promote-human-and-environmental-health/ https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/adblocking-the-globa... Public advertising is company sponsored graffiti; http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/litter-on-a-stick/ http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/litter-on-a-stick/
QuadrupleA 7y ago
This is great. For website owners, magazines etc. it's sorta their choice to "pollute" their pages with ads, but out in the world you're polluting the commons, where people have little choice in the matter. It depletes people's ability to have a clear head & freely focus their attention.
djohnston 7y ago
There was an iPhone ad draped over the Louvre a few months ago. I was shocked that the parisians of all people would debase themselves for Tim cook like that.
- justinclift 7y ago
  Yeah, the government in Victoria (Australia) forced the Sydney Opera House to accept gambling ads (for horse racing) projected onto it a few months ago. Despite large public outcry, etc. Definitely some money changed hands to bribe the gov people involved to make it happen. Can't see any other excuse for it.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Meanwhile, there are resources available for people who are stuck in areas of high visual pollution, which require only a small investment in tools and mindfulness of personal safety. http://brandalism.ch/take-action/ http://brandalism.ch/take-action/ http://www.billboardliberation.com/ArtAndScience-BLF.pdf http://www.billboardliberation.com/ArtAndScience-BLF.pdf http://www.billboardliberation.com/ http://www.billboardliberation.com/
spodek 7y ago
I look forward to the mainstream catching up to seeing advertising like second-hand smoke: harmful enough to others to ban based on widespread democratic support.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asiachick 7y ago
one reason I love living in Asia the shear amount of advertising is far more interesting to walk around than say Irving California which is basically Speilberg-esch E.T. suburbia.
- oska 7y ago
  Question: can you read the advertising (i.e. read the native language)? Because for me at least, chinese & japanese advertising can look 'picturesque' but I think I would feel differently if I could actually read the banal messages that are undoubtedly being pushed.
jabofh 7y ago
My wife did her PhD in out-of-home media (which very much included billboards). I have yet to find a more rabid opponent to out-of-home advertising (in general) and billboards (in particular), and she will explain why it is evil at the drop of the proverbial hat... As an amateur artist she will start with visual pollution and then veer into psychological damage... /grin
- Vinnl 7y ago
  Curious: does she have an argument for why in-home advertising is good, or is it just that she has not studied it?
  - jabofh 7y ago
    Mostly a lack of study, it would seem, but she is anti-advertising in general as well...
idclip 7y ago
Germany is FILLED by them, they often advert smoking brands on bus stations. I hope germany learns from france, this is great news and very inspiring

324 points by Vinnl 7y ago

A general sentiment I see here is that ads should be banned, but what can be done in the US? The First Amendment protects truthful advertisements. In addition, we have the FTC for misleading and lying ads (although their success is not what it should be (case in point: OutBrain and Taboola)). So, what do we do? Further reading on the 1st Amendment and advertising: http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electric_Corp._v._Public_Service_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electri...

eugeniub 7y ago
Generally, the first amendment restricts the ability to enact laws banning certain types of ads over other ads, but not laws banning all ads from certain areas. For example, four states — Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine — have banned billboard advertisements.[1] Vermont was the first to ban them in 1968[2] and these laws haven't been challenged on first amendment grounds, though presumably their passages were fought. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billboards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billbo... [2]: https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-and-sign-control/ https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-...
- deogeo 7y ago
  I should clarify the parent post - when they said "types of ads", what they really meant is the content. The 1st amendment forbids the government from discriminating on the content of a message, but they can restrict messaging in general. Though I believe there are limits to how much they can restrict that as well - a blanket ban on protests, for example, would likely not fly.
munk-a 7y ago
There is no part of the 1st Amendment that states that people need to read your advertising, additionally some states (like VT) have full bans on billboards - regardless of the reasoning for this that ban has been upheld and private citizens can't compel the state to allow placement of billboards on public property - there are also various style related laws (in Boston you need a special permit when constructing on Beacon Hill that makes it very difficult to build non-brick faced buildings) there is nothing illegal at a constitutional level in either of these cases. The 1st Amendment prevents discrimination of advertising (you can't chose to disallow ads for raspberries but be all in for strawberry ads because you, the mayor, find raspberries offensive) but there is no guarantee to the right of other people's attention. Advertisements on public property can absolutely be banned and, possibly with an ordnance, I believe you could heavily restrict advertising on private property. The government can't shut you up when expressing protected speech, but it doesn't have to help you talk, nor does it have to make people listen to you.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Perhaps common law precedent screws us over. But I don't see a problem in principle following the spirit, or even word of the written law: 1) Spying ads absolutely are more than speech: the information flow is bidirectional, and the 1st amendment isn't a right to listen. 2) It could be argued that the state cannot sell advertisements without privileging one message over another; currently "non-political ad" rules already contested, and they are even more of laughing stock beyond that once one considers that all commerce and economic activity is political. Only laws that limit the amount of messaging rather than the content are truly unbiased. 3) For private ads, while the owner of the building owns the surface where the ad is, I don't think it is fair to say they own the sight lines to the building. The problem with ADs is they can literally leave you nowhere to look when you are moving in public spaces the advertiser definitely doesn't own. I think a comparison could be made with EM spectrum law. Just because you own the antenna doesn't mean you can broadcast whatever you like. Electric adds that have their own lighting are certainly broadcasters. And if passive things like giant RFIDs are regulated, We could probably get non-illuminated ads also to be regulated. So assuming all the above gets through the courts, we can do nothing about urinal ads in private establishments, but we can clean up public spaces completely, or at least limit them to non-illuminated ads. At that point, I hope the remaining indoor ads would be far more annoying in relative terms, and that would create some helpful economic pressure for the owner to tamp them down.
jimbob45 7y ago
Nobody wants ads banned. The problem is that ads are being placed into previously unused places and louder than before. The result is that all companies have to compete with these new obnoxious ads or risk falling behind their competitors that are willing to put ads in distasteful places. In my opinion, the solution is to clearly define a discrete set of spaces for ads and make sure everyone is able to compete on equal footing. It's not like these companies want to shell out more money for ads - they simply have to in order to compete. EDIT: Also the US needs to adopt Britain's ban on election ads outside of the election month. We waste a phenomenal amount of time and money on election ads that provide zero real benefit to the US.
- munk-a 7y ago
  > Nobody wants ads banned. I want ads banned. They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling.
  - reificator 7y ago
    > > Nobody wants ads banned. > I want ads banned. > They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I'm a prolific adblocker, but I disagree with you here. I think if things were kept at a reasonable balance, advertising would be a net positive. There have been several times where I've tried new restaurants because of ads. Sometimes I'll go searching to buy a specific thing, and realize that it doesn't yet exist in the market. Then a few months or years later, I'll see an advertisement for that thing, and I'm always very appreciative. That's not to mention that if ads were banned tomorrow, the established brands would have decades of advantage built up against newcomers, becoming a self-reinforcing monopoly that I'd imagine would last decades after the last person to have seen an ad dies. And don't forget, making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away. Look at how often people accuse accounts on social media of astroturfing. Do you think that astroturfing will become more or less common after a ban on advertising? At least with ads legal I can evaluate them as ads. I can't tell which glowing reviews are legitimate and which are planted, and if you think you can I'd put money against you. > I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling. I definitely agree with you on that. The current state of ads is nothing less than an assault on people's cognitive abilities and mental health. Something needs to give here.

q845712 7y ago

It's kind of an open secret that the city of Santa Barbara (CA, US) has banned several forms of public outdoor advertising: we have no billboards, no promotional posters, no taxi toppers... It's delightful, and very high on my list of reasons why I enjoy living here. Every time I leave I'm reminded how noisy space is when it's filled with advertisements. I wholeheartedly recommend others advocate for similar policies in their municipality - it can be done!

munk-a 7y ago
Taxi toppers are an interesting one to ban - I suppose the city can simply refuse to license taxis that refuse to sign a contract agreeing to not use toppers but any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV - possibly... I'm not certain how a lawsuit would come down trying to determine if vehicle appearance could be restricted by a state or if that right was withheld by the federal government.
- justin66 7y ago
  > any advertisement on a private not otherwise restricted vehicle would be the providence of the state DMV ??? The state DMV neither writes nor enforces laws.
  - whelsemin 7y ago
    Are there any government bodies between city and state level that have the power to do this? In CA, US for example. Not a quiz.
    - justin66 7y ago
      Counties can pass ordinances, if that is what you are asking.
dominotw 7y ago
thats nice. They prbly have a good tax base that doesn't need this extra revenue stream. property tax is decent enough revenue where median home is > 1 mil. > I enjoy living here Yea its a given that its nice to live where people earn more and live in expensive homes :D

ajna91 7y ago

I think in the near future we'll have empirical evidence that most ads are malicious exploits of flaws in human psychology. Ideally, all ads should be plain text listing of facts. Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. And they should be listed in "Ad sections", like a phone book.

sosborn 7y ago
> plain text listing of facts Coca-Cola tastes great! Coca-Cola gives you an extra pep in your step! Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! These are all true statements (the first one is subjective, I'll admit), but I suspect that many believe the effect of plain test listing of facts would only allow the third statement. > Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. Wouldn't a photo of someone drinking a Coke and enjoying it be allowed under this rule?
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  Facts and advertisements are like apples and oranges. The notion of "plain text listing of fact" is pretty vague, though I'd personally classify none of those above statements as "plain text listing of facts", and all of them could be advertisements in the right context. An advertisement is a communication designed to manipulate its recipient. Whether it's "true" or not is neither here nor there. In fact, a lot of advertisements are complete non-sequiturs, because those kinds of statements are less likely to make the listeners/viewers think critically about the statements.
- oehpr 7y ago
  I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.
  - trophycase 7y ago
    Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is speech that would not otherwise be made if one party was not being compensated in some way or another. Obviously this definition has tons of edge cases, but it's a good starting point IMO. While all of those coca cola ads are "true", they would be limited in scope to places that coca cola owns. So no bus stations or taxi toppers or whatever, unless they buy a fleet of taxis.

redis_mlc 7y ago

For those who haven't been to Paris, there's moving/jittering electronic signs everywhere like something out of Minority Report. They're a distracting eyesore and should be banned.

K0SM0S 7y ago
Compared to most global city I've seen (NYC, Amsterdam, Zurich, German cities, Tokyo, Singapour, Bankgok, London...) I'd say Paris is of the least 'technological' kind. It's actually so distinct that as a nerd I just don't feel 'home' in France, architecturally, culturally, compared to most comparable countries/cities on any continent. France feels somewhat stuck in time, which you may not be able to tell looking at all the smartphones and 1Gb fiber, but could glimpse at by talking with enough locals: they just don't like / trust / see value in high-tech in general, more like a threat / disturbance / forced upon them). Again, this is the feeling, the mindset, not 'reality' or 'objective truth' (the French are the same as everyone else in this regard, obviously; I'm talking about perceptions here, like the fact that the French are the most pessimistic on Earth despite their incredible relative wealth (less than 1% of the world's population for 3.25% GDP) and quality of life (GINI, whatever). It's great that Paris and the French exists for those who'd rather live in a more 'vintage' environment (this can be said for a lot of European small/mid cities btw), but subjectively, France is everything but high-tech or 'nerdy' compared to Germany, UK, USA, Japan (probably topping it all), Korea, basically the world's top 10-15-20 countries (GDP per capita). Even Switzerland, which is very old-school in a lot of ways, feels more "21st century" than France in day-to-day living.

docdeek 7y ago

In Lyon the public ad space was traded to an ad company in exchange for funding and maintaining the city's public bike share scheme. It's a trade off, of course, but for just 30 euros à year I (and the rest of the city) get virtually unlimited bike share. The anti-ad groups here would be happy for the public ads to disappear but it would be a real shame if the affordable bike share went with it. FWIW there is a real debate about who got the better side of the deal between the city and the ad company, but the Velov scheme is great. :)

magwa101 7y ago
They wouldn't buy the advertising if they couldn't make a profit on your attention. Pay with brain space, or pay through a tax. Which is more expensive?
- Vinnl 7y ago
  It's not the brain space that's paying for the advertising, it's your (or, well, people's) buying of the advertised products. So in addition to the costs of brain space, there are still also actual financial costs to it that are borne by the city's citizens.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    Well they got the product they bought, so it's a stretch to consider it a cost. Perhaps only the marginal cost that went to advertising, but it's still a stretch to consider it a cost if the buyer considers they got their money's worth.
basicplus2 7y ago
This is what taxes are for.. ban advertising, increase taxes on these companies, and pay for the bikes with taxes
- docdeek 7y ago
  If you ban outdoor advertising i' a city there won't be an outdoor advertising company to tax.

Scoundreller 7y ago

My money is on JCDecaux winning this battle.

faissaloo 7y ago

I can't wait for the day when we finally get rid of these coordinated assaults on our senses, both online and in the real world. Things like Ublock Origin & SponsorBlock have opened my eyes to a world without adverts.

glangdale 7y ago

Good on these guys. The French also are massive exporters of this garbage - Sydney is lousy with billboards inflicted on us by JC Decaux. Amusingly enough, the JC Decaux trucks are entirely festooned with Australian flags, which is a totally conventional for a 100% French company to use as visual elements and not deceptive at all.

BurningFrog 7y ago

OK, I'll make the case for ads: Ads are disruptive. They allow new businesses to break into markets owned by old dominant suppliers. This way they keep the market healthy and serving consumers. Based on that, you'd expect anti-ad initiatives to be aligned with powerful established industries. Not that I know how to confirm or refute that.

lordlic 7y ago
Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Incumbents will have more money to spend, chilling the influence of new competitors. Most of the "disruptor" success stories that come to mind started with some variation of "we didn't spend anything on advertising, relying on word of mouth."
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Ads allow whomever has the deepest pockets to dominate the public's attention. Not necessarily. Advertising has diminishing returns -- we know this because companies don't buy unlimited advertising. If every ad dollar was as good as the first (i.e. it generated more than a dollar in profit) then everybody would buy an unlimited amount of advertising so they could make an unlimited profit. At some point you hit saturation and it costs more than it makes you. Meanwhile the little guy needs it more because they're unknown, i.e. their baseline is further from the point of saturation so they have a higher cost/benefit ratio. If nobody advertises then people keep buying from the incumbent because they don't know of any alternatives. The biggest problem with advertising isn't big vs. little, it's that it's a signaling war. If Coke spends a dollar and Pepsi doesn't, Pepsi loses $2 in sales. But if they both spend a dollar then they've each burned a dollar only to both stay where they started. What would really help is to have some industry of trustworthy third parties whose job it is to tell you what to buy, but nobody has ever really cracked it, because the buyers don't want to pay for it and the sellers only want to pay if it will influence the results.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Advertising indeed seems to give an edge to newcomers over the incumbents, but those same "little guys" would need to advertise less if everyone's attention wasn't already saturated by everyone else's ads. Everyone is still wasting money; new players just waste less.

CptFribble 7y ago

Banning ads would be nice, but that's already old thinking. The growth of the influencer model, advertorials/newsvertising, and individual personality as brand experience means that even if all public ads were banned, brands would just be paying thousands of micro-influencers for IRL mentions, tracked silently through the mic on your phone. When you take the influencer thing to it's logical conclusion (everyone is a brand ambassador) then it becomes real murky real quick about what's an ad and what's just a person's opinion.

na85 7y ago
>tracked silently through the mic on your phone. Perhaps if the largest phone operating system vendor didn't have a financial incentive to weaken privacy, this would not be a problem.
Swizec 7y ago
> (everyone is a brand ambassador) So word of mouth? The already known highest quality way to gain new customers: friends of existing customers. All you gotta do is have a product good enough to be recommended. And maybe a nice built-in viral loop or twenty.
ShorsHammer 7y ago
People can choose to avoid "influencers" quite easily. That 10m LED billboard down the street blasting sound, not so much.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
That's just a reason to also ban "influencing". Few other ways of advertising damage the basic fabric of society - interpersonal trust - as badly as influencers.
- thebean11 7y ago
  How would that even work?

jeffrallen 7y ago

In Lausanne, we have "le pub vous faites de-penser" stickers on many billboards. Translation: Advertising makes you de-think (a pun on "spend")

7sigma 7y ago
As a bilingual, found that one really nice. (minor nitpick: should be "la pub")
- AntiqueFig 7y ago
  Also, if "La pub" then it should be "vous fait". Or alternatively, "Les pubs vous font".
notaregular 7y ago
But also most of the billboards are ads for cultural events, theatre, city-organised events, museums etc. I quite like that actually, where else would I find about some shows or things to do.
- oska 7y ago
  > I quite like that actually, where else would I find about some shows or things to do. How about in a free magazine which advertises all such events? Or a website that does similar? Also listings of "What's On" in more general media.
  - notaregular 7y ago
    All of that is also great too, but I find it’s less of a waste to print a dozen of billboards at strategic locations vs. printing hundreds of thousands of newspapers and spam peoples mailboxes. In Lausanne specifically, those billboards are also works of art in their own right so I do enjoy them.

OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago

Good on them. In Los Angeles, the tonier the neighborhood the fewer the billboards. The savagery of monster electronic signage and visual barrage increases substantially as one goes into the less affluent locations.

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
Well, of course. Mental pollution is just another thing poor people are subjected to, while the executives of those same advertising companies live in suburbs without a single billboard in sight.
- OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
  Definitely true in America's saddle point society. A certain class will always go back to equilibrium no matter the shove, the rest fall off the sides at the slightest touch. The poorer areas are subjected to architectural punishment, food as unhealthy as it is cheap, lack of investment and services, and pollution of all varieties. I see the "Cloud Minders" from the original Star Trek.
xenospn 7y ago
The giant jumbotrons by the airport and in Inglewood are insane.
- OldGuyInTheClub 7y ago
  You read my mind. Those are exactly the ones I was thinking of. They're expanding.

mr_custard 7y ago

Quite simply, advertising is visual pollution; whether it be on large billboards, on bus stops or freestanding in the middle of the sidewalk. It's visual pollution and it has ruined our towns and cities. I'm excited to read this article and see that people are taking a stand.

msla 7y ago
It's a much more literal form of pollution in mailboxes.
Joe-Z 7y ago
The first time I started thinking about it that way was when I bought a book featuring a selection of Banksy's works [0]. In the opening pages it had a quote of him, making pretty much that point: The public space is ours. It's not their for corporations. It's to be enjoyed by the people and if you want to come in with your hands full of money to make something else of it you can fuck right off. He's a true artist. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Piece-Banksy/dp/1844137872 https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Piece-Banksy/dp/1844137872
- andrepd 7y ago
  Banksy quote on advertising. --- 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 sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.

rdxm 7y ago

LOL, SV is literally built on toxic advertising at this point. What would happen to things like HN if people and regulatory bodies got serious about the shit-show that is internet advertising?

pastor_elm 7y ago

>'Advertising breaks your spirit' Anyone who has taken the NYC Subway understands this sentiment. The only way to avoid them is to completely close your eyes and wish you were somewhere else.

adenverd 7y ago

Bit of a crypto-tangent: more than anything else, the hope of replacing advertising as the economic engine of the Internet is why I care about the cryptocurrency space. In most cases, I think crypto is a solution looking for a problem, but the capability to trade edge compute/memory/disk/network for an ad free Internet experience would be immeasurably good for our collective mental health.

mlinksva 7y ago

I personally prefer to tax rather than ban, but good on them. What's different about the internet that has some countries trying digital services taxes rather than digital ad bans?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
My guess: no obvious immediate hazard + not enough public outrage + lots of money flowing through = countries want to tax it to capture some of that money.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

99chrisbard 7y ago

The Indian city of Chennai banned billboard advertising completely; https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/adblocking-the-global-cities-clearing-streets-of-advertising-to-promote-human-and-environmental-health/ https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/adblocking-the-globa... Public advertising is company sponsored graffiti; http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/litter-on-a-stick/ http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/litter-on-a-stick/

QuadrupleA 7y ago

This is great. For website owners, magazines etc. it's sorta their choice to "pollute" their pages with ads, but out in the world you're polluting the commons, where people have little choice in the matter. It depletes people's ability to have a clear head & freely focus their attention.

djohnston 7y ago

There was an iPhone ad draped over the Louvre a few months ago. I was shocked that the parisians of all people would debase themselves for Tim cook like that.

justinclift 7y ago
Yeah, the government in Victoria (Australia) forced the Sydney Opera House to accept gambling ads (for horse racing) projected onto it a few months ago. Despite large public outcry, etc. Definitely some money changed hands to bribe the gov people involved to make it happen. Can't see any other excuse for it.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Meanwhile, there are resources available for people who are stuck in areas of high visual pollution, which require only a small investment in tools and mindfulness of personal safety. http://brandalism.ch/take-action/ http://brandalism.ch/take-action/ http://www.billboardliberation.com/ArtAndScience-BLF.pdf http://www.billboardliberation.com/ArtAndScience-BLF.pdf http://www.billboardliberation.com/ http://www.billboardliberation.com/

spodek 7y ago

I look forward to the mainstream catching up to seeing advertising like second-hand smoke: harmful enough to others to ban based on widespread democratic support.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

asiachick 7y ago

one reason I love living in Asia the shear amount of advertising is far more interesting to walk around than say Irving California which is basically Speilberg-esch E.T. suburbia.

oska 7y ago
Question: can you read the advertising (i.e. read the native language)? Because for me at least, chinese & japanese advertising can look 'picturesque' but I think I would feel differently if I could actually read the banal messages that are undoubtedly being pushed.

jabofh 7y ago

My wife did her PhD in out-of-home media (which very much included billboards). I have yet to find a more rabid opponent to out-of-home advertising (in general) and billboards (in particular), and she will explain why it is evil at the drop of the proverbial hat... As an amateur artist she will start with visual pollution and then veer into psychological damage... /grin

Vinnl 7y ago
Curious: does she have an argument for why in-home advertising is good, or is it just that she has not studied it?
- jabofh 7y ago
  Mostly a lack of study, it would seem, but she is anti-advertising in general as well...

idclip 7y ago

Germany is FILLED by them, they often advert smoking brands on bus stations. I hope germany learns from france, this is great news and very inspiring