22 ms·

Adfree Cities

326 points by edward 3y ago

secabeen 3y ago
Santa Barbara, CA has banned most billboards and outdoor advertising for many years; it's quite refreshing. Being back in LA or SF where it's allowed is somewhat jarring, honestly.
trizuz 3y ago
[dead]
datadrivenangel 3y ago
Replace ad spaces for murals, public art, or interesting architecture!
donjorgenson 3y ago
Incredible
docdeek 3y ago
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. There's not more ads, just a monopoly on who sells the space to advertisers. The city might be prettier without the advertisements but it seems a good trade off to be removing vehicles from the road and promoting healthy transport via the bike scheme.
- juanpicardo 3y ago
  it is absolutely possible to achieve the same without ads. your city simply does not want to do it.
- k__ 3y ago
  This is cool! They should force restaurants at public places to provide places to sit, even if you don't buy anything. Instead, they do crap like anti-homeless spikes...
- polonbike 3y ago
  I guess you live in Lyon, France, same as I do. Even if I despite the ads, the bike sharing deal is quite good for users and the city.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.
  - ponector 3y ago
    The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system. Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      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.]
      - okr 3y ago
        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.
        j_maffe 3y ago
        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.
        okr 3y ago
        You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tclancy 3y ago
  >This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. I get what you mean, but arguments like this confuse the underlying issue of how we value and price things. It's certainly not "only possible" that way. It makes me think of the Mark Fisher line “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
- croisillon 3y ago
  it feels like 1 in 3 cyclists is riding a Vélo'v, Lyon is a very nice city
- franga2000 3y ago
  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 than the maximum we allow for such contracts normally (5 or 10 years). And I won't even go into the corruption that got them the tender in the first place... Fuck JCDecaux!
  - dantyti 3y ago
    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.
    - franga2000 3y ago
      I've been meaning to do the same. I'm currently trying to get information on the number of billboards and when they were put up through FOIA requests so I can run some numbers and I already made some interesting visualizations of how badly the stops are located from JCDecaux's API. Our capital got these bikes 10 years before us and had similar issues. A small news outlet made a pretty good report on the "secret costs of city bikes" and that's kind of what I'm going for: https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-oglasni-plakati-na-vsakem-koraku/ https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-og...
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I wonder how much this bike contract actually takes to maintain vs how much the holder gets in advertisements. Even if near flat even, which feels unlikely as why bother holding the contract then, it's still a way with more overhead than just funding the bike program.
- rustcleaner 3y ago
  [dead]
- H8crilA 3y ago
  > 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.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > 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.
tylervigen 3y ago
I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards in cities and airports #1 has gotten more aggressive lately. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it has happened. However, at least I can choose to avoid these sites if I wish. #2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me. I find billboards ugly, distracting, and annoying clutter. It's just visual "noise." What's worse is that the products targeted in #1 above are frequently relevant to me, and I have purchased them. But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more municipalities clamped down on these.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  You can get rid of #1 by moving to Mastodon. Many servers appreciate donations but basically none of them have ads.
  - nicbou 3y ago
    #1 is about ads in the content itself, not ads that are designed to look like the posts around it
- sphars 3y ago
  For integrated ads on YouTube (sponsor messages), you can use the SponsorBlock extension (https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/). If you're using Android, you can also get NewPipe with SponsorBlock integration.
  - alwayslikethis 3y ago
    If you can't use NewPipe, you can also.get Youtube ReVanced which also has sponsorblock
- deleted 3y ago
amadeuspagel 3y ago
The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point in a long list of "why are these 5 companies controlling everything after I've destroyed every single alternative".
- digging 3y ago
  > The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local businesses in my city have literally never paid for advertising. Lastly, your complaint is meritless because Adfree Cities is not campaigning to ban all conceivable forms of advertising. From TFA (well, the FAQ page): > Why doesn’t Adfree Cities campaign against all kinds of advertising? > Our focus is on creating neighbourhoods and cities free from corporate outdoor advertising such as billboards. There are specific problems with outdoor advertising as explained briefly above and in more detail here: The trouble with billboards. And there are unique opportunities for communities to reclaim these spaces for art, nature and local initiatives.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    While the billboard may be an international corporation, they target local business. Most billboards I see in rural areas are for local businesses targeting travelers with things they probably need anyway - gas, hotels, and restaurants at the next exit. In cities there is a different mix.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      At least in the US many of these are franchised businesses, so it is still corporations (Hilton, Best Western, McDonald’s etc.)
Aerbil313 3y ago
Ban all ads. All of them, they all are junk info our brains are not designed to handle.
- andrewfromx 3y ago
  free speech in the USA prevents this. What do you define as "ad". Can I talk to the person behind me in line at starbucks and tell them how I feel about the new iphone? Am I advertising to them? What if I work for apple? Can I wear a tshirt that says "iphone are great!" Ban that??
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    I suspect it would still be unconstitutional, but you wouldn't be banning the speech but rather the financial transaction. I.e. it's legal to walk into starbucks and tell people about your product but you can't pay someone else to do it.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Content bans are unconstitutional, blanket bans on visual pollution are not, as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Austin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_National_Advertising_of_Austin%2C_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio...
    - Zak 3y ago
      Alaska is an interesting case, as it mostly has a right-libertarian political culture that says "it's nobody's business what I do on my own property" but draws the line at billboards. I grew up there, and seeing billboards other places was jarring.
helen___keller 3y ago
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 justification that we should make cities adfree due to the harms of ads (described in OP). Ads will appear elsewhere: within stores, online, on top of taxi cabs, stapled to poles, and so on. We can’t make ads disappear. Our best bet is to target specifically the most harmful ads by law (like misleading/false advertising and such).
- arketyp 3y ago
  They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them. Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question. Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up to the person. Are we so incapacitated we can't just take some personal responsibility and resist in quiet? I find this revolting mob strategy distasteful, honestly.
  - digging 3y ago
    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 answer to powerful corporations abusing the public. Vulnerable people do and always will exist.
    - Nagyman 3y ago
      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 heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike. I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.
jmugan 3y ago
I think of it as "stealing" my attention. Instead of enjoying blue sky as my thoughts wander peacefully, someone takes this from me to yell that I should buy a new widget.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Not just your attention. Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the person you could be if you bought their product. That is, it attempts to steal your satisfaction, and then offers to sell it back to you. Quoting from memory, and I don't remember who I'm quoting, so I can't give credit where due. I didn't originate the thought, or even the wording. But it has stuck with me, because it explains what so much of advertising does.
  - 2cynykyl 3y ago
    I'm turning this concept into my new life motto, thank you! (Not that I needed it, I'm already so anti ads). Anyway, if you ever remember the source please post it back here.
- benkillin 3y ago
  I think this, too.
kzrdude 3y ago
Ad-free goes hand in hand with distraction-free for me. Thus "Stay up to date with Adfree Cities" and "Watch the video to see three steps you can take today" do not speak to me, at all.
- cwillu 3y ago
  “Greenwashing is a CRIME” disgusted me and soured me on the whole thing, despite the concept itself being quite appealing and also being generally opposed to greenwashing.
- digging 3y ago
  So you're only interested in insulating yourself from ads? That's fine, but why even click the link then? Neither of those things they're offering are inherently distractions; it's not like they're signing you up for push notifications or unsolicited calls.
sunday_serif 3y ago
Not so long ago, I was traveling around Switzerland. During my time in the country, there was always something just a little off, and I couldn’t place what it was. Was it cleaner? Was the architecture just very modernist? Did it have something to do with the season? Eventually, I realized that the difference I was noticing between Switzerland and California (my home state) was that there was simply much less advertising in the physical spaces of cities. I am not sure if this is a result of some legislature there or if it is just a result of the way the Swiss think about visual design and advertising. But I absolutely loved it. It was so refreshing to see the beauty of a city block without being bombarded by advertisements. It really lets the character of a city shine through. LA, SF and Sac seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum… practically the only thing you notice are the billboards.
- ChiMan 3y ago
  Tokyo is jam-packed with ads and loads of neon. When I lived there, I loved the visual effect. It brought the city to life and visually reaffirmed the economic bedrock of any modern city: Commerce.
- davidgay 3y ago
  Billboards (standalone or on buildings) are not allowed.
- secretsatan 3y ago
  Geneva narrowly rejected banning billboards recently. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-on-commercial-adverts-in-streets/48353784# https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-...
- maxwell 3y ago
  Yeah I've heard several people report similar "little off but I love it" feelings when visiting here in Maine. The obnoxious billboards always bugged me around Chicago as a kid, but my kids enjoy the novelty when traveling. Similar with TV: we got a digital bunny ear and they were all excited about the commercials, as they've seen so few in their lives (YouTube Premium, streaming, discs/drives, etc.).
ruddct 3y ago
I've had the pleasure of visiting a few cities/countries without much (if any) physical advertising/billboards, it's a change that's both incredibly jarring and incredibly pleasant! At first there's a bit of an uncanny valley effect, particularly when driving around a city. Eventually that settles down, and the reduction in low-level visual stimulus is really appreciated. Coming back home, you might see the insane levels of visual pollution we deal with in a new light. Not qualified to comment on the broader economic ramifications of this, but as a normal person navigating the world, it's pretty great!
woodruffw 3y ago
Seems like a laudable goal to me, but there are degrees here: * Advertising in the form of pasted posters, signs for nearby stores, etc.; * "Large scale" advertising, e.g. the 60+ foot free-standing or roof-mounted pillars that are common in US cities and on roads; * Mixed-digital advertising that usually has some kind of analytics or tracking mixed in (e.g. the much-maligned "digital front" displays that some convenience stores are installing[1]) To my mind, the first is mostly unobjectionable, the second is usually visually offensive (and should be price-adjusted to reflect the diminishing effect it has on the urban environment), and the third is civically offensive (and should be outright illegal). [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-screens/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-sc...
sunday_serif 3y ago
I don’t have any numbers on hand, but I have to imagine this would also reduce a lot of waste. I didn’t realize until recently that almost all billboards are made of a thick plastic vinyl material. I recently saw one of these billboards folded up on the ground before it went up. It’s just a giant chunk of plastic that I imagine ends up in some landfill somewhere.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
givinguflac 3y ago
I love this effort! I try my best to avoid any type of advertising. I’ll buy an AR/VR headset/glasses when they can block IRL billboard ads. That’s the killer app for me.
anonporridge 3y ago
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 conditioned me to filter out most public signage. At least in my lived experience, the noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  I've got an overactive filter as well, and I think it's because of a similar conditioning around "99% of incoming signal is worthless to me". I'm often wondering what the speed limit is here because I missed the sign. I still notice pretty sunsets though.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > 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.
  - dantyti 3y ago
    I've read your comment and looked at some photos of Times Square and the Piccadilly Circus. Hard disagree.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      Both exist as a thing explicitly because of the amount of ads. No one goes to Time Sq to have "authentic Italian" meal at Olive Garden. They aren't a proof of ads being too much noise. Not any more than a lion at a zoo is proof that lions have overrun the city.
snow_mac 3y ago
I wonder, what's the carbon impact to junk mail (advertisements), billboards, digital ads and ads in video. These all take billions of dollars to produce, print, edit, mail, send all over the world. I want to know what percentage advertising plays in emissions.
simonbarker87 3y ago
We were on a small island off the coast of Mexico a few weeks ago and they have a program where buildings can make their external wall/walls available for local artists to pitch and paint on. It made the island have a really nice feel and brightened the streets considerably. Much nicer than a soap or movie ad.
briandear 3y ago
[flagged]
black_puppydog 3y ago
I lived in Grenoble (France) for 9 years and recently moved to another city. I arrived shortly after big billboards (but by far not all advertising) was banned from the inner city in Grenoble, and the difference now is quite staggering. I don't get how people put up with this shit, I feel physically attacked every time I walk past big billboards.
danjc 3y ago
I sincerely hope the UK doesn't get that monstrosity of an ad billboard - Sphere. In Las Vegas, it's basically right at home but in the UK it might be the most unbritish installation ever.
germandiago 3y ago
This is totally double-edged. We get information from the environment as well. If advertisements get forbidden they could easily get replaced by "good things to do" monopoly gobernments. Namely, propaganda. Also, ads make life for many people. I think regulation is enough. Forbiding would be harmful IMHO as a whole.
- maxwell 3y ago
  Any signs of this in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, or Maine, where billboards have been banned since 1977 and earlier?
  - germandiago 3y ago
    Not an american. Probably we live in different realities regarding this topic.
- moolcool 3y ago
  > Also, ads make life for many people. What?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
uneekname 3y ago
I grew up in a U.S. city without any billboards, and it was such a shock to move somewhere with a "normal" number of billboards. Besides being ugly, I wonder how they could possibly be effective? Does anyone choose their motorcycle insurance based on which billboard they see first?
legitster 3y ago
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 enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop. And billboards are a pretty unobtrusive and low-tech way of getting my intention. I still regularly learn about new restaurants or attractions or museum exhibits because of well placed billboards. I certainly thing some billboard types and content and locations are bad (digital billboards - yuck). But that seems like an argument for good policy making from your local government rather than a blanket opposition to all forms.
- noqc 3y ago
  [flagged]
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Yeah, I'd oppose the installation of a billboard in my neighborhood, that's about it. You wanna put one on the highway or commercial zone, I don't really care. I've lived in billboard-heavy cities (like LA) and billboard-free ones.
- citified 3y ago
  I agree that ads on ugly 10-lane highways don't really detract from anything, but this is not the case with the cities this organisation deals with. They are mostly historic, pedestrianised cities in England where (especially digital) advertising would be of serious detriment to the surroundings, which is what is being campaigned against here.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    That makes sense. I wouldn't want ads or anything else ugly in a historic area, but also this is normally something you combat locally. It seems like this site targets an oddly broad audience.
numlock86 3y ago
The root problem is people do "fall" for advertisements. They are everywhere because ... well, they work. There's rarely any critical thinking involved and often ads are not even identified as such and people consider them "information".
chankstein38 3y ago
I've never understood why billboards are legal. They're distracting and placed along the roads and highways. In my driving course I remember being told that even so much as talking to a passenger or adjusting the volume of the radio can be dangerous so you should be paying 100% attention to the road. So why are billboards, things that are specifically built, along roads, to draw my attention legal? So let's go adfreecities!
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  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, neither conversation nor radio adjustments nor billboards are a dangerous distraction. I do think that billboards are ugly and would prefer to not have them, but I don't think that there is a reasonable justification to ban them on safety grounds.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as well. (But they aren't)
    - rurp 3y ago
      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.
      - JAlexoid 3y ago
        Then it would be easy for you to provide multiple studies, saying that billboards are distracting. Not just your opinion, but a lot of concrete evidence. We have had billboards for decades now. There's tonnes of data on where accidents happen. Yet no one seems to be able to provide data based backing to their opinions...
everdrive 3y ago
Adfree is the only thing I'll currently tolerate. I tried out the Spotify client back on linux when the company was really new. If I turned the volume off while it played an advertisement, it actually paused the ad until I turned the volume back up. One strike and they're out. Spotify has been banned in my household ever since.
- paxys 3y ago
  Or, you know, you could pay them.
  - everdrive 3y ago
    I won't pay somebody who would attempt to force to show me ads. Youtube's approach is much more appropriate: deny access to the site. I'm not owed content, but no one has the right to force me to view content either.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
I kinda like how they do it in Finland. Companies can have a smallish logos on their buildings. Most of Helsinki is unspoiled by garish boards except a few in the obvious shopping area around Kamppi.
miguelazo 3y ago
This is one of the great things about traveling in Cuba-- no billboards.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
This is disappointing. They’re covering ads…with their own ads. Their methods appear to be mounting targeted campaigns against specific ad runs. That’s totally unavailable. Highway billboards cause crashes [1]. In cities it kills pedestrians [2]. What we need is model legislation folks can introduce to their city councils. Not gushy nonsense, aimed at making participants feel good more than tangible effect, where the front-page call to action is to join a mailing list. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/ [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of_advertising_billboards_during_simulated_driving https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of...
RivieraKid 3y ago
Interesting that I've been noticing similar sentiment (people focusing on making public spaces nicer and ad-free) in the Czech Republic as well. It seems related to covid but I think it started earlier.
waihtis 3y ago
Yet another political green movement which will shortly pivot into antiracism and other populist leftist topics
celestialcheese 3y ago
Does this include billboards at local tracks, ballfields, sporting centers? What about ads inside airports? Bus stops? Transit stations? Where will the money come from to fill in the budget gaps left by removing these ads? If I'm at a local minor league baseball game, and see an ad for "Bill the plumber", how is that a problem? It's local community supporting local community spaces. If Bud Lite buys a spot next to them, great! More dollars for my local ballpark so they can stay open. The nature of local, physical advertising is that the ad dollars stay (mostly)* local. * Mostly because clearchannel manages most billboards on roadways around the country. They pay rent to landowners, who may or may not be local, but they also pay local taxes. So not perfect dollar retention.
iambateman 3y ago
It's hard to overstate how peaceful being in an ad-free city is. the first time I experienced this was Hilton Head Island, which does a great job of limiting signage and ads inside the island. I didn't realize how much the visual noise really does make a difference. Next, let's do cars driving faster than 30mph. :D
5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 3y ago
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.
- dantyti 3y ago
  IRL ad blocking is the only use case that would make me consider using AR
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    The killer app for smart glasses. I want this so much.
- syndacks 3y ago
  You realize HN is one big smattering of advertisements, yea?
poniko 3y ago
I would pay 5% tax to skip all ads in my life ..
triyambakam 3y ago
I live on an implicitly ad free island in the Pacific. You might figure out where but I'm being vague for privacy. In any case, I don't believe there is any law against e.g. billboards here, but there definitely aren't any. I really appreciate it. When I've driven in e.g. California I feel so depressed seeing all the billboards.
- BizarreByte 3y ago
  I lived on an island (not in the pacific) where billboards are completely banned, the height of business signs is limited, and where very, very few public places had any advertisements, even in the "city". It was wonderful and it's one thing I really miss.
GuB-42 3y ago
This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves. Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels, I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to influence people. I understand that even anti-ad groups need to advertise themselves, but really, I would have preferred if they could show more actual ad removal and less ad replacement.
- lancesells 3y ago
  I would also prefer they weren't loading scripts from the biggest ad company in the world (Google).
ElijahLynn 3y ago
I went to that cite expecting to see a list of Adfree Cities, but couldn't find the list...
syndacks 3y ago
Ironically, this is an advertisement itself. And you can never ever ban ads because someone might write a comment on an internet forum noting just how delicious an ice cold can of Coke is on a hot day.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Imagine if a billboard company had a trillion dollar market cap. Would it be possible to keep them out of a city. No limit to the number of palms they could grease. Who knows, governments might resort to antitrust law to stop them.

326 points by edward 3y ago

Santa Barbara, CA has banned most billboards and outdoor advertising for many years; it's quite refreshing. Being back in LA or SF where it's allowed is somewhat jarring, honestly.

trizuz 3y ago

[dead]

datadrivenangel 3y ago

Replace ad spaces for murals, public art, or interesting architecture!

donjorgenson 3y ago

Incredible

docdeek 3y ago

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. There's not more ads, just a monopoly on who sells the space to advertisers. The city might be prettier without the advertisements but it seems a good trade off to be removing vehicles from the road and promoting healthy transport via the bike scheme.

juanpicardo 3y ago
it is absolutely possible to achieve the same without ads. your city simply does not want to do it.
k__ 3y ago
This is cool! They should force restaurants at public places to provide places to sit, even if you don't buy anything. Instead, they do crap like anti-homeless spikes...
polonbike 3y ago
I guess you live in Lyon, France, same as I do. Even if I despite the ads, the bike sharing deal is quite good for users and the city.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.
- ponector 3y ago
  The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system. Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    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.]
    - okr 3y ago
      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.
      - j_maffe 3y ago
        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.
        okr 3y ago
        You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tclancy 3y ago
>This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. I get what you mean, but arguments like this confuse the underlying issue of how we value and price things. It's certainly not "only possible" that way. It makes me think of the Mark Fisher line “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
croisillon 3y ago
it feels like 1 in 3 cyclists is riding a Vélo'v, Lyon is a very nice city
franga2000 3y ago
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 than the maximum we allow for such contracts normally (5 or 10 years). And I won't even go into the corruption that got them the tender in the first place... Fuck JCDecaux!
- dantyti 3y ago
  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.
  - franga2000 3y ago
    I've been meaning to do the same. I'm currently trying to get information on the number of billboards and when they were put up through FOIA requests so I can run some numbers and I already made some interesting visualizations of how badly the stops are located from JCDecaux's API. Our capital got these bikes 10 years before us and had similar issues. A small news outlet made a pretty good report on the "secret costs of city bikes" and that's kind of what I'm going for: https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-oglasni-plakati-na-vsakem-koraku/ https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-og...
zamadatix 3y ago
I wonder how much this bike contract actually takes to maintain vs how much the holder gets in advertisements. Even if near flat even, which feels unlikely as why bother holding the contract then, it's still a way with more overhead than just funding the bike program.
rustcleaner 3y ago
[dead]
H8crilA 3y ago
> 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.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > 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.

tylervigen 3y ago

I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards in cities and airports #1 has gotten more aggressive lately. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it has happened. However, at least I can choose to avoid these sites if I wish. #2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me. I find billboards ugly, distracting, and annoying clutter. It's just visual "noise." What's worse is that the products targeted in #1 above are frequently relevant to me, and I have purchased them. But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more municipalities clamped down on these.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
You can get rid of #1 by moving to Mastodon. Many servers appreciate donations but basically none of them have ads.
- nicbou 3y ago
  #1 is about ads in the content itself, not ads that are designed to look like the posts around it
sphars 3y ago
For integrated ads on YouTube (sponsor messages), you can use the SponsorBlock extension (https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/). If you're using Android, you can also get NewPipe with SponsorBlock integration.
- alwayslikethis 3y ago
  If you can't use NewPipe, you can also.get Youtube ReVanced which also has sponsorblock
deleted 3y ago

amadeuspagel 3y ago

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point in a long list of "why are these 5 companies controlling everything after I've destroyed every single alternative".

digging 3y ago
> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local businesses in my city have literally never paid for advertising. Lastly, your complaint is meritless because Adfree Cities is not campaigning to ban all conceivable forms of advertising. From TFA (well, the FAQ page): > Why doesn’t Adfree Cities campaign against all kinds of advertising? > Our focus is on creating neighbourhoods and cities free from corporate outdoor advertising such as billboards. There are specific problems with outdoor advertising as explained briefly above and in more detail here: The trouble with billboards. And there are unique opportunities for communities to reclaim these spaces for art, nature and local initiatives.
- bluGill 3y ago
  While the billboard may be an international corporation, they target local business. Most billboards I see in rural areas are for local businesses targeting travelers with things they probably need anyway - gas, hotels, and restaurants at the next exit. In cities there is a different mix.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    At least in the US many of these are franchised businesses, so it is still corporations (Hilton, Best Western, McDonald’s etc.)

Aerbil313 3y ago

Ban all ads. All of them, they all are junk info our brains are not designed to handle.

andrewfromx 3y ago
free speech in the USA prevents this. What do you define as "ad". Can I talk to the person behind me in line at starbucks and tell them how I feel about the new iphone? Am I advertising to them? What if I work for apple? Can I wear a tshirt that says "iphone are great!" Ban that??
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  I suspect it would still be unconstitutional, but you wouldn't be banning the speech but rather the financial transaction. I.e. it's legal to walk into starbucks and tell people about your product but you can't pay someone else to do it.
- maxwell 3y ago
  Content bans are unconstitutional, blanket bans on visual pollution are not, as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Austin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_National_Advertising_of_Austin%2C_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio...
  - Zak 3y ago
    Alaska is an interesting case, as it mostly has a right-libertarian political culture that says "it's nobody's business what I do on my own property" but draws the line at billboards. I grew up there, and seeing billboards other places was jarring.

helen___keller 3y ago

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 justification that we should make cities adfree due to the harms of ads (described in OP). Ads will appear elsewhere: within stores, online, on top of taxi cabs, stapled to poles, and so on. We can’t make ads disappear. Our best bet is to target specifically the most harmful ads by law (like misleading/false advertising and such).

arketyp 3y ago
They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them. Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question. Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up to the person. Are we so incapacitated we can't just take some personal responsibility and resist in quiet? I find this revolting mob strategy distasteful, honestly.
- digging 3y ago
  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 answer to powerful corporations abusing the public. Vulnerable people do and always will exist.
  - Nagyman 3y ago
    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 heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike. I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.

jmugan 3y ago

I think of it as "stealing" my attention. Instead of enjoying blue sky as my thoughts wander peacefully, someone takes this from me to yell that I should buy a new widget.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Not just your attention. Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the person you could be if you bought their product. That is, it attempts to steal your satisfaction, and then offers to sell it back to you. Quoting from memory, and I don't remember who I'm quoting, so I can't give credit where due. I didn't originate the thought, or even the wording. But it has stuck with me, because it explains what so much of advertising does.
- 2cynykyl 3y ago
  I'm turning this concept into my new life motto, thank you! (Not that I needed it, I'm already so anti ads). Anyway, if you ever remember the source please post it back here.
benkillin 3y ago
I think this, too.

kzrdude 3y ago

Ad-free goes hand in hand with distraction-free for me. Thus "Stay up to date with Adfree Cities" and "Watch the video to see three steps you can take today" do not speak to me, at all.

cwillu 3y ago
“Greenwashing is a CRIME” disgusted me and soured me on the whole thing, despite the concept itself being quite appealing and also being generally opposed to greenwashing.
digging 3y ago
So you're only interested in insulating yourself from ads? That's fine, but why even click the link then? Neither of those things they're offering are inherently distractions; it's not like they're signing you up for push notifications or unsolicited calls.

sunday_serif 3y ago

Not so long ago, I was traveling around Switzerland. During my time in the country, there was always something just a little off, and I couldn’t place what it was. Was it cleaner? Was the architecture just very modernist? Did it have something to do with the season? Eventually, I realized that the difference I was noticing between Switzerland and California (my home state) was that there was simply much less advertising in the physical spaces of cities. I am not sure if this is a result of some legislature there or if it is just a result of the way the Swiss think about visual design and advertising. But I absolutely loved it. It was so refreshing to see the beauty of a city block without being bombarded by advertisements. It really lets the character of a city shine through. LA, SF and Sac seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum… practically the only thing you notice are the billboards.

ChiMan 3y ago
Tokyo is jam-packed with ads and loads of neon. When I lived there, I loved the visual effect. It brought the city to life and visually reaffirmed the economic bedrock of any modern city: Commerce.
davidgay 3y ago
Billboards (standalone or on buildings) are not allowed.
secretsatan 3y ago
Geneva narrowly rejected banning billboards recently. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-on-commercial-adverts-in-streets/48353784# https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-...
maxwell 3y ago
Yeah I've heard several people report similar "little off but I love it" feelings when visiting here in Maine. The obnoxious billboards always bugged me around Chicago as a kid, but my kids enjoy the novelty when traveling. Similar with TV: we got a digital bunny ear and they were all excited about the commercials, as they've seen so few in their lives (YouTube Premium, streaming, discs/drives, etc.).

ruddct 3y ago

I've had the pleasure of visiting a few cities/countries without much (if any) physical advertising/billboards, it's a change that's both incredibly jarring and incredibly pleasant! At first there's a bit of an uncanny valley effect, particularly when driving around a city. Eventually that settles down, and the reduction in low-level visual stimulus is really appreciated. Coming back home, you might see the insane levels of visual pollution we deal with in a new light. Not qualified to comment on the broader economic ramifications of this, but as a normal person navigating the world, it's pretty great!

woodruffw 3y ago

Seems like a laudable goal to me, but there are degrees here: * Advertising in the form of pasted posters, signs for nearby stores, etc.; * "Large scale" advertising, e.g. the 60+ foot free-standing or roof-mounted pillars that are common in US cities and on roads; * Mixed-digital advertising that usually has some kind of analytics or tracking mixed in (e.g. the much-maligned "digital front" displays that some convenience stores are installing[1]) To my mind, the first is mostly unobjectionable, the second is usually visually offensive (and should be price-adjusted to reflect the diminishing effect it has on the urban environment), and the third is civically offensive (and should be outright illegal). [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-screens/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-sc...

sunday_serif 3y ago

I don’t have any numbers on hand, but I have to imagine this would also reduce a lot of waste. I didn’t realize until recently that almost all billboards are made of a thick plastic vinyl material. I recently saw one of these billboards folded up on the ground before it went up. It’s just a giant chunk of plastic that I imagine ends up in some landfill somewhere.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

givinguflac 3y ago

I love this effort! I try my best to avoid any type of advertising. I’ll buy an AR/VR headset/glasses when they can block IRL billboard ads. That’s the killer app for me.

anonporridge 3y ago

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 conditioned me to filter out most public signage. At least in my lived experience, the noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I've got an overactive filter as well, and I think it's because of a similar conditioning around "99% of incoming signal is worthless to me". I'm often wondering what the speed limit is here because I missed the sign. I still notice pretty sunsets though.
JAlexoid 3y ago
> 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.
- dantyti 3y ago
  I've read your comment and looked at some photos of Times Square and the Piccadilly Circus. Hard disagree.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    Both exist as a thing explicitly because of the amount of ads. No one goes to Time Sq to have "authentic Italian" meal at Olive Garden. They aren't a proof of ads being too much noise. Not any more than a lion at a zoo is proof that lions have overrun the city.

snow_mac 3y ago

I wonder, what's the carbon impact to junk mail (advertisements), billboards, digital ads and ads in video. These all take billions of dollars to produce, print, edit, mail, send all over the world. I want to know what percentage advertising plays in emissions.

simonbarker87 3y ago

We were on a small island off the coast of Mexico a few weeks ago and they have a program where buildings can make their external wall/walls available for local artists to pitch and paint on. It made the island have a really nice feel and brightened the streets considerably. Much nicer than a soap or movie ad.

briandear 3y ago

[flagged]

black_puppydog 3y ago

I lived in Grenoble (France) for 9 years and recently moved to another city. I arrived shortly after big billboards (but by far not all advertising) was banned from the inner city in Grenoble, and the difference now is quite staggering. I don't get how people put up with this shit, I feel physically attacked every time I walk past big billboards.

danjc 3y ago

I sincerely hope the UK doesn't get that monstrosity of an ad billboard - Sphere. In Las Vegas, it's basically right at home but in the UK it might be the most unbritish installation ever.

germandiago 3y ago

This is totally double-edged. We get information from the environment as well. If advertisements get forbidden they could easily get replaced by "good things to do" monopoly gobernments. Namely, propaganda. Also, ads make life for many people. I think regulation is enough. Forbiding would be harmful IMHO as a whole.

maxwell 3y ago
Any signs of this in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, or Maine, where billboards have been banned since 1977 and earlier?
- germandiago 3y ago
  Not an american. Probably we live in different realities regarding this topic.
moolcool 3y ago
> Also, ads make life for many people. What?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

uneekname 3y ago

I grew up in a U.S. city without any billboards, and it was such a shock to move somewhere with a "normal" number of billboards. Besides being ugly, I wonder how they could possibly be effective? Does anyone choose their motorcycle insurance based on which billboard they see first?

legitster 3y ago

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 enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop. And billboards are a pretty unobtrusive and low-tech way of getting my intention. I still regularly learn about new restaurants or attractions or museum exhibits because of well placed billboards. I certainly thing some billboard types and content and locations are bad (digital billboards - yuck). But that seems like an argument for good policy making from your local government rather than a blanket opposition to all forms.

noqc 3y ago
[flagged]
hot_gril 3y ago
Yeah, I'd oppose the installation of a billboard in my neighborhood, that's about it. You wanna put one on the highway or commercial zone, I don't really care. I've lived in billboard-heavy cities (like LA) and billboard-free ones.
citified 3y ago
I agree that ads on ugly 10-lane highways don't really detract from anything, but this is not the case with the cities this organisation deals with. They are mostly historic, pedestrianised cities in England where (especially digital) advertising would be of serious detriment to the surroundings, which is what is being campaigned against here.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  That makes sense. I wouldn't want ads or anything else ugly in a historic area, but also this is normally something you combat locally. It seems like this site targets an oddly broad audience.

numlock86 3y ago

The root problem is people do "fall" for advertisements. They are everywhere because ... well, they work. There's rarely any critical thinking involved and often ads are not even identified as such and people consider them "information".

chankstein38 3y ago

I've never understood why billboards are legal. They're distracting and placed along the roads and highways. In my driving course I remember being told that even so much as talking to a passenger or adjusting the volume of the radio can be dangerous so you should be paying 100% attention to the road. So why are billboards, things that are specifically built, along roads, to draw my attention legal? So let's go adfreecities!

bigstrat2003 3y ago
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, neither conversation nor radio adjustments nor billboards are a dangerous distraction. I do think that billboards are ugly and would prefer to not have them, but I don't think that there is a reasonable justification to ban them on safety grounds.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as well. (But they aren't)
  - rurp 3y ago
    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.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      Then it would be easy for you to provide multiple studies, saying that billboards are distracting. Not just your opinion, but a lot of concrete evidence. We have had billboards for decades now. There's tonnes of data on where accidents happen. Yet no one seems to be able to provide data based backing to their opinions...

everdrive 3y ago

Adfree is the only thing I'll currently tolerate. I tried out the Spotify client back on linux when the company was really new. If I turned the volume off while it played an advertisement, it actually paused the ad until I turned the volume back up. One strike and they're out. Spotify has been banned in my household ever since.

paxys 3y ago
Or, you know, you could pay them.
- everdrive 3y ago
  I won't pay somebody who would attempt to force to show me ads. Youtube's approach is much more appropriate: deny access to the site. I'm not owed content, but no one has the right to force me to view content either.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

I kinda like how they do it in Finland. Companies can have a smallish logos on their buildings. Most of Helsinki is unspoiled by garish boards except a few in the obvious shopping area around Kamppi.

miguelazo 3y ago

This is one of the great things about traveling in Cuba-- no billboards.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

This is disappointing. They’re covering ads…with their own ads. Their methods appear to be mounting targeted campaigns against specific ad runs. That’s totally unavailable. Highway billboards cause crashes [1]. In cities it kills pedestrians [2]. What we need is model legislation folks can introduce to their city councils. Not gushy nonsense, aimed at making participants feel good more than tangible effect, where the front-page call to action is to join a mailing list. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/ [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of_advertising_billboards_during_simulated_driving https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of...

RivieraKid 3y ago

Interesting that I've been noticing similar sentiment (people focusing on making public spaces nicer and ad-free) in the Czech Republic as well. It seems related to covid but I think it started earlier.

waihtis 3y ago

Yet another political green movement which will shortly pivot into antiracism and other populist leftist topics

celestialcheese 3y ago

Does this include billboards at local tracks, ballfields, sporting centers? What about ads inside airports? Bus stops? Transit stations? Where will the money come from to fill in the budget gaps left by removing these ads? If I'm at a local minor league baseball game, and see an ad for "Bill the plumber", how is that a problem? It's local community supporting local community spaces. If Bud Lite buys a spot next to them, great! More dollars for my local ballpark so they can stay open. The nature of local, physical advertising is that the ad dollars stay (mostly)* local. * Mostly because clearchannel manages most billboards on roadways around the country. They pay rent to landowners, who may or may not be local, but they also pay local taxes. So not perfect dollar retention.

iambateman 3y ago

It's hard to overstate how peaceful being in an ad-free city is. the first time I experienced this was Hilton Head Island, which does a great job of limiting signage and ads inside the island. I didn't realize how much the visual noise really does make a difference. Next, let's do cars driving faster than 30mph. :D

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 3y ago

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.

dantyti 3y ago
IRL ad blocking is the only use case that would make me consider using AR
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  The killer app for smart glasses. I want this so much.
syndacks 3y ago
You realize HN is one big smattering of advertisements, yea?

poniko 3y ago

I would pay 5% tax to skip all ads in my life ..

triyambakam 3y ago

I live on an implicitly ad free island in the Pacific. You might figure out where but I'm being vague for privacy. In any case, I don't believe there is any law against e.g. billboards here, but there definitely aren't any. I really appreciate it. When I've driven in e.g. California I feel so depressed seeing all the billboards.

BizarreByte 3y ago
I lived on an island (not in the pacific) where billboards are completely banned, the height of business signs is limited, and where very, very few public places had any advertisements, even in the "city". It was wonderful and it's one thing I really miss.

GuB-42 3y ago

This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves. Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels, I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to influence people. I understand that even anti-ad groups need to advertise themselves, but really, I would have preferred if they could show more actual ad removal and less ad replacement.

lancesells 3y ago
I would also prefer they weren't loading scripts from the biggest ad company in the world (Google).

ElijahLynn 3y ago

I went to that cite expecting to see a list of Adfree Cities, but couldn't find the list...

syndacks 3y ago

Ironically, this is an advertisement itself. And you can never ever ban ads because someone might write a comment on an internet forum noting just how delicious an ice cold can of Coke is on a hot day.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Imagine if a billboard company had a trillion dollar market cap. Would it be possible to keep them out of a city. No limit to the number of palms they could grease. Who knows, governments might resort to antitrust law to stop them.