4 ms·

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 hellsc

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.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    A lot of people in Britain live in, work in or regularly visit a historic area. However, I think they're targeting everywhere in the UK, historic or not.
    - legitster 3y ago
      I can totally see not wanting ads in historic areas, but on their website you can see them protesting billboards in industrial sections and freeway underpasses and the like.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        Man, this site almost looks like an intentional distraction from real pollution-fighting measures.
vlvdus 3y ago
I support you. I've been living in a city with no billboards for a while - it's rather boring for various reasons, billboards would be an improvement.
- digging 3y ago
  How boring can your city be that billboards are enough entertainment to improve it? Are you sure you're, y'know, participating in urban life at all?
vlovich123 3y ago
Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. They’re also lit up like crazy and are an extra hazard at night not to mention the light pollution. Advertising for local events should be allowed under some carve out but it would be nice if the vast majority of ads died as they’re not that. Here in SF for example when entering or leaving the city the ads are full of coke, Disney, Apple or Google phones, or various startups trying to show VCs their money is being put to good use (same thing film studios do in LA putting awards nominations and tv ada on billboards on the route to work/home of influential money people on a given project)
- legitster 3y ago
  I agree that some billboards are real road hazards. But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. SF is actually the example I had in mind because they do a good job of keeping them away from the scenic areas - but the whole downtown core is already such a dump that I really don't mind the advertisements. I think you are also discounting how weird SF ads are - as a visitor they are actually unique and interesting to me. One of the fun things about visiting different cities is seeing how unique the cultures are, and ads actually give you a good window into this.
  - digging 3y ago
    > But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped though. It's not worth the increased danger. Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise featureless void, but I think people are either going to look at their phone or not, regardless of what's outside their car.
    - legitster 3y ago
      No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.
bondarchuk 3y ago
>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. Do you really see the removal of advertising from public space as this much of a threat to your way of life? Your sarcastic remark about ending consumerism and society sounds quite hateful towards people who don't want to see advertising, whereas (speaking from myself at least) I feel no hate at all towards people who don't mind ads. My preference for not viewing ads comes purely from my own personal annoyance that I experience whenever I see them, it does not come from any kind of hate or dislike towards people like you who don't mind them, and I don't really want to change anyone's lifestyle.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  If you don't want to see X, you just have to no look. Being offended by X, doesn't mean that you have an inherent right to ban X. X throughout the times were/are ads, black people, campaign billboards, crossdressing and Pride parades. Every time someone says "it should be banned, because I don't want to see it in public" is eerily reminiscent of the arguments of homophobes that I hear all the time. "I don't want to see" or "it offends me" must never be a reason for banning something. It's not sufficient.
  - digging 3y ago
    I knew you were a troll.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      You're right. Because no one can ever have an opinion that is opposite to you and your claims never require evidence to back them up. Calling someone a troll, because you just throw out absurd claims expecting everyone to take your word for it - is quite arrogant.
rurp 3y ago
> 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. It's interesting to me that you connect these things so strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems inseparable from normal business. Fortunately it is quite possible to have vibrant free markets in areas that are not plastered in corporate advertisements.
- legitster 3y ago
  I'm was only being a little flip there. Taken straight from their website: > We see the fight against billboards as part of a wider struggle for social, ecological and economic justice. So to be completely fair, I am responding to the case that they are making that combatting billboards is just one piece of an intersectional fight against corporations and injustice.
  - dantyti 3y ago
    Well, yes. Previously, anyone could put up a poster on a public Morris column in my city, now all the public space is owned by jcdecaux.
dantyti 3y ago
>If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad? Yes, it intrudes into a person's thought pattern with the explicit goal of selling you a product/service/idea. I'd much rather stare at a wall and continue with my thought or look at a work of art (which 99.99% of ads are not, imho). > 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! So why not put up a non-distracting work of art? Have ads become the only visual expression allowed in public?

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.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  A lot of people in Britain live in, work in or regularly visit a historic area. However, I think they're targeting everywhere in the UK, historic or not.
  - legitster 3y ago
    I can totally see not wanting ads in historic areas, but on their website you can see them protesting billboards in industrial sections and freeway underpasses and the like.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Man, this site almost looks like an intentional distraction from real pollution-fighting measures.

vlvdus 3y ago

I support you. I've been living in a city with no billboards for a while - it's rather boring for various reasons, billboards would be an improvement.

digging 3y ago
How boring can your city be that billboards are enough entertainment to improve it? Are you sure you're, y'know, participating in urban life at all?

vlovich123 3y ago

Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. They’re also lit up like crazy and are an extra hazard at night not to mention the light pollution. Advertising for local events should be allowed under some carve out but it would be nice if the vast majority of ads died as they’re not that. Here in SF for example when entering or leaving the city the ads are full of coke, Disney, Apple or Google phones, or various startups trying to show VCs their money is being put to good use (same thing film studios do in LA putting awards nominations and tv ada on billboards on the route to work/home of influential money people on a given project)

legitster 3y ago
I agree that some billboards are real road hazards. But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. SF is actually the example I had in mind because they do a good job of keeping them away from the scenic areas - but the whole downtown core is already such a dump that I really don't mind the advertisements. I think you are also discounting how weird SF ads are - as a visitor they are actually unique and interesting to me. One of the fun things about visiting different cities is seeing how unique the cultures are, and ads actually give you a good window into this.
- digging 3y ago
  > But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped though. It's not worth the increased danger. Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise featureless void, but I think people are either going to look at their phone or not, regardless of what's outside their car.
  - legitster 3y ago
    No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.

bondarchuk 3y ago

>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. Do you really see the removal of advertising from public space as this much of a threat to your way of life? Your sarcastic remark about ending consumerism and society sounds quite hateful towards people who don't want to see advertising, whereas (speaking from myself at least) I feel no hate at all towards people who don't mind ads. My preference for not viewing ads comes purely from my own personal annoyance that I experience whenever I see them, it does not come from any kind of hate or dislike towards people like you who don't mind them, and I don't really want to change anyone's lifestyle.

JAlexoid 3y ago
If you don't want to see X, you just have to no look. Being offended by X, doesn't mean that you have an inherent right to ban X. X throughout the times were/are ads, black people, campaign billboards, crossdressing and Pride parades. Every time someone says "it should be banned, because I don't want to see it in public" is eerily reminiscent of the arguments of homophobes that I hear all the time. "I don't want to see" or "it offends me" must never be a reason for banning something. It's not sufficient.
- digging 3y ago
  I knew you were a troll.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    You're right. Because no one can ever have an opinion that is opposite to you and your claims never require evidence to back them up. Calling someone a troll, because you just throw out absurd claims expecting everyone to take your word for it - is quite arrogant.

rurp 3y ago

> 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. It's interesting to me that you connect these things so strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems inseparable from normal business. Fortunately it is quite possible to have vibrant free markets in areas that are not plastered in corporate advertisements.

legitster 3y ago
I'm was only being a little flip there. Taken straight from their website: > We see the fight against billboards as part of a wider struggle for social, ecological and economic justice. So to be completely fair, I am responding to the case that they are making that combatting billboards is just one piece of an intersectional fight against corporations and injustice.
- dantyti 3y ago
  Well, yes. Previously, anyone could put up a poster on a public Morris column in my city, now all the public space is owned by jcdecaux.

dantyti 3y ago

>If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad? Yes, it intrudes into a person's thought pattern with the explicit goal of selling you a product/service/idea. I'd much rather stare at a wall and continue with my thought or look at a work of art (which 99.99% of ads are not, imho). > 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! So why not put up a non-distracting work of art? Have ads become the only visual expression allowed in public?