5 ms·

They should be banned, and not because people are automatons, but because advertisements are invariably objectively distracting and increasingly garish as firms

by avazhi 4y ago

They should be banned, and not because people are automatons, but because advertisements are invariably objectively distracting and increasingly garish as firms attempt to outcompete one another for attention. It's really just a question of what kind of society we want to live in - my own view is that people should have the option not to be bombarded by hawkers, whether it's homeless people, Mormons, or corporate shills, while they move about public spaces.

ryandrake 4y ago
I would support some kind of Right To Not Be Accosted. I don’t know what that would look like exactly but people who want to sell or market something to me ought to have to obtain my consent first. It doesn’t seem right that you can go out and try to mind your business and be constantly under assault by things and people looking to take your attention. Like pollution laws, we should have a right to live life without all that in our environment.
- dannyw 4y ago
  Should this apply to protests and petitions?
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Sure. I’m not a big fan of protests, in particular ones that intrude and disrupt me trying to simply go about my life. Petitions are just variations on sales pitches, like religious proselytizing, which I also would not consent to if I had the choice.
  - avazhi 4y ago
    It should. People ought to have a right to go, again, into public spaces and mind their business. They should be free to go about without being accosted or harangued or, for example, inconvenienced because people have chained themselves to the doors of commuter trains or have decided to lay in the middle of the highway. Kind of the old 'your rights end where they interfere with my rights' kind of thing - going about my normal business in a public space is never likely to interfere with anybody, at least not in a purposeful way, whereas protests are by definition intended to interfere with my right to enjoy public spaces. They are, quite literally, intended to 'shock' normal people into changing their viewpoints or behaviour. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia) protests in the CBD often disturb private citizens in their homes.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
And not just billboards. Did I ask to have ads put on my gas pump? No, I did not. (I didn't ask for Maria Menudos to be put on it either. Why, every time that I pump gas, do I have to watch her on the gas pump?) I didn't ask for ad-blaring TVs to be in airport waiting areas. In fact, both of those are worse than billboards. Billboards mostly don't move and talk.

by avazhi 4y ago

ryandrake 4y ago

I would support some kind of Right To Not Be Accosted. I don’t know what that would look like exactly but people who want to sell or market something to me ought to have to obtain my consent first. It doesn’t seem right that you can go out and try to mind your business and be constantly under assault by things and people looking to take your attention. Like pollution laws, we should have a right to live life without all that in our environment.

dannyw 4y ago
Should this apply to protests and petitions?
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Sure. I’m not a big fan of protests, in particular ones that intrude and disrupt me trying to simply go about my life. Petitions are just variations on sales pitches, like religious proselytizing, which I also would not consent to if I had the choice.
- avazhi 4y ago
  It should. People ought to have a right to go, again, into public spaces and mind their business. They should be free to go about without being accosted or harangued or, for example, inconvenienced because people have chained themselves to the doors of commuter trains or have decided to lay in the middle of the highway. Kind of the old 'your rights end where they interfere with my rights' kind of thing - going about my normal business in a public space is never likely to interfere with anybody, at least not in a purposeful way, whereas protests are by definition intended to interfere with my right to enjoy public spaces. They are, quite literally, intended to 'shock' normal people into changing their viewpoints or behaviour. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia) protests in the CBD often disturb private citizens in their homes.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

And not just billboards. Did I ask to have ads put on my gas pump? No, I did not. (I didn't ask for Maria Menudos to be put on it either. Why, every time that I pump gas, do I have to watch her on the gas pump?) I didn't ask for ad-blaring TVs to be in airport waiting areas. In fact, both of those are worse than billboards. Billboards mostly don't move and talk.