4 ms·

The same complaint ("I did not choose to see this") could be done about anything that's out in public: Why do I have to see your street art? Why do I have to s

The same complaint ("I did not choose to see this") could be done about anything that's out in public: Why do I have to see your street art? Why do I have to see your clothes? Why do I have to see your face? Why do I have to see your car? However, it's widely accepted that not wanting to see something doesn't justify vandalizing someone else's art/clothes/car/whatever. Why should it be different for ads?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Doxin 2y ago
For some wild reason it's basically only permitted for large companies to deface the public space like this. You go try putting some street art out there while the cops are watching, see what happens. In addition to that by far most things people would want to put in public spaces isn't explicitly designed to upset you like ads are. Why do we allow companies to plaster public spaces with veiled insults?
- G3rn0ti 2y ago
  > „Public spaces“ Usually buildings have private property owners. They agree to putting a bill board on their wall or they don’t. Graffiti sprayers usually don’t ask for permission — and that’s where the difference comes from. In Europe you don’t usually have huge bill board on buildings. Rather you have lots of advertising columns on the side walks (here in Berlin we call them „Litfaßsäule“ named after the local inventor Paul Litfaß in 1854). You could argue they being a nuisance for sure but before the internet and even before radio and tv it was an important place of public communication. Actually they were an improvement because prior to advertising columns advertisers were wildly plastering anything with posters.
  - Doxin 2y ago
    > Usually buildings have private property owners. They agree to putting a bill board on their wall or they don’t. And yet if I agree to have someone stand on my property shouting insults at passers-by I'll get a visit from the police soon enough. This issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because the owner of the building the billboard is attached to agrees to have it there doesn't mean no one else is affected. There's already limits to what you can put on a billboard. Banning billboards isn't some radical new category of thing. it's simply moving that threshold down to "you can put nothing on billboards"
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Property ownership does not entitle you to do absolutely anything you want. We live in a society of common spaces, and we need not allow people to own property if they do not agree to our social contract.
    - mcosta 2y ago
      Where is that contract and when did I signed it?
      - Doxin 2y ago
        "The social contract" is a very well defined and explored concept[0]. It's not a literal contract. Being intentionally obtuse about word definitions isn't going to convince anyone of anything. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
      - account42 2y ago
        I'm sure if you commit a crime the Judge will also let you go if you point out that technically you never agreed to the laws of the country you live in.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Pay for it like the companies do and nobody would care. It’s shocking you think companies have a special privilege here.
  - Doxin 2y ago
    Sure it's perhaps not companies having special privilege, but I think it's equally awful to give "entities with lots of money" special privileges in the public space. Entities with lots of money are the minority, why should they get to dictate what public space looks like for the majority? If it came to a honest vote on whether people would like billboards or no billboards I think the result is obvious.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      It’s not lots of money. Regular people can afford billboards. A vote of people liking billboards is completely independent of the “oh, the powerful corporations use them” pearl clutching. I would hate billboards if they were just dominated by individuals using them to promote religious and political ideologies. The only reason their usage is dominated by businesses is because businesses generate returns off of advertising. They don’t have special privilege and they certainly aren’t out of reach of individuals, clubs, non-profits, etc.
imiric 2y ago
> Why should it be different for ads? Because other things in public don't manipulate me into thinking a certain way in order to take money from me. People that attempt to do that are labeled as grifters and scammers, and the legal system deals with them. Why should it be different for ads?
BanksySquared 2y ago
Banksy's answer to this would be so simple, I'm baffled you bothered asking. You wouldn't attack another person for their clothes. Because it's on and belongs to a person. Banksy wouldn't give a damned if you painted over his art. Because it's not on person and belongs to no person. Same as the ad space and the abandoned building he painted over. He attacked those who legally contributed negatively to public spaces. No one's car is doing that, and if they were, kids would just scribble "Wash Me!" over it and you would be there clapping, oblivious to this conversation until pointed out.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > He attacked those who legally contributed negatively to public spaces. No one's car is doing that Are you kidding? Cars are well known for their negative contributions to public spaces, in the forms of (1) exhaust, and (2) noise. This is part of why I'm baffled that the solution to electric cars not constantly generating terrible noise pollution is to mandate that they all include and operate noisemakers.
  - account42 2y ago
    I'm sure you can understand that, while incidental, the noise cars make is important for their use in public spaces not being even more of an unacceptable danger and that simply taking the noise away means the car should not be allowed on public roads. If you can make the electric car at least as safe as existing cars for everyone around it then go right ahead and propose it. Yes, car noise is annoying but the alternative is much much worse. Not so for ads.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > Yes, car noise is annoying but the alternative is much much worse. No, it isn't. When you solve a problem, the answer is not to panic and legislate that the problem must never be solved. If you have other problems, work on those. We already have plenty of technology for dealing with roads that are dangerous. In general, we handle them by preventing pedestrians from using or crossing them, and providing over- or underpasses. This is superior in every way to adding noisemakers to cars. But it's not necessarily the best solution! It's just one that (a) we already have, and (b) is better than what you're calling a superior alternative. The only reason anyone even considers noisemakers is that they're used to cars that make noise. But a history of doing something the wrong way is a terrible reason to avoid doing it the right way.
kelnos 2y ago
Because my street art, my clothes, my face, and my car aren't trying to psychologically manipulate you into opening your wallet, merely by the fact of their presence. I would hope that you aren't arguing in such bad faith that you can't see that advertising is another thing entirely.
account42 2y ago
Yes? This is why we have or at least used to have obscenity laws. To prevent real-life equivalents of internet trolls from shitting up the public space.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Doxin 2y ago

For some wild reason it's basically only permitted for large companies to deface the public space like this. You go try putting some street art out there while the cops are watching, see what happens. In addition to that by far most things people would want to put in public spaces isn't explicitly designed to upset you like ads are. Why do we allow companies to plaster public spaces with veiled insults?

G3rn0ti 2y ago
> „Public spaces“ Usually buildings have private property owners. They agree to putting a bill board on their wall or they don’t. Graffiti sprayers usually don’t ask for permission — and that’s where the difference comes from. In Europe you don’t usually have huge bill board on buildings. Rather you have lots of advertising columns on the side walks (here in Berlin we call them „Litfaßsäule“ named after the local inventor Paul Litfaß in 1854). You could argue they being a nuisance for sure but before the internet and even before radio and tv it was an important place of public communication. Actually they were an improvement because prior to advertising columns advertisers were wildly plastering anything with posters.
- Doxin 2y ago
  > Usually buildings have private property owners. They agree to putting a bill board on their wall or they don’t. And yet if I agree to have someone stand on my property shouting insults at passers-by I'll get a visit from the police soon enough. This issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because the owner of the building the billboard is attached to agrees to have it there doesn't mean no one else is affected. There's already limits to what you can put on a billboard. Banning billboards isn't some radical new category of thing. it's simply moving that threshold down to "you can put nothing on billboards"
- kelnos 2y ago
  Property ownership does not entitle you to do absolutely anything you want. We live in a society of common spaces, and we need not allow people to own property if they do not agree to our social contract.
  - mcosta 2y ago
    Where is that contract and when did I signed it?
    - Doxin 2y ago
      "The social contract" is a very well defined and explored concept[0]. It's not a literal contract. Being intentionally obtuse about word definitions isn't going to convince anyone of anything. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
    - account42 2y ago
      I'm sure if you commit a crime the Judge will also let you go if you point out that technically you never agreed to the laws of the country you live in.
kortilla 2y ago
Pay for it like the companies do and nobody would care. It’s shocking you think companies have a special privilege here.
- Doxin 2y ago
  Sure it's perhaps not companies having special privilege, but I think it's equally awful to give "entities with lots of money" special privileges in the public space. Entities with lots of money are the minority, why should they get to dictate what public space looks like for the majority? If it came to a honest vote on whether people would like billboards or no billboards I think the result is obvious.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    It’s not lots of money. Regular people can afford billboards. A vote of people liking billboards is completely independent of the “oh, the powerful corporations use them” pearl clutching. I would hate billboards if they were just dominated by individuals using them to promote religious and political ideologies. The only reason their usage is dominated by businesses is because businesses generate returns off of advertising. They don’t have special privilege and they certainly aren’t out of reach of individuals, clubs, non-profits, etc.

imiric 2y ago

> Why should it be different for ads? Because other things in public don't manipulate me into thinking a certain way in order to take money from me. People that attempt to do that are labeled as grifters and scammers, and the legal system deals with them. Why should it be different for ads?

BanksySquared 2y ago

Banksy's answer to this would be so simple, I'm baffled you bothered asking. You wouldn't attack another person for their clothes. Because it's on and belongs to a person. Banksy wouldn't give a damned if you painted over his art. Because it's not on person and belongs to no person. Same as the ad space and the abandoned building he painted over. He attacked those who legally contributed negatively to public spaces. No one's car is doing that, and if they were, kids would just scribble "Wash Me!" over it and you would be there clapping, oblivious to this conversation until pointed out.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> He attacked those who legally contributed negatively to public spaces. No one's car is doing that Are you kidding? Cars are well known for their negative contributions to public spaces, in the forms of (1) exhaust, and (2) noise. This is part of why I'm baffled that the solution to electric cars not constantly generating terrible noise pollution is to mandate that they all include and operate noisemakers.
- account42 2y ago
  I'm sure you can understand that, while incidental, the noise cars make is important for their use in public spaces not being even more of an unacceptable danger and that simply taking the noise away means the car should not be allowed on public roads. If you can make the electric car at least as safe as existing cars for everyone around it then go right ahead and propose it. Yes, car noise is annoying but the alternative is much much worse. Not so for ads.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Yes, car noise is annoying but the alternative is much much worse. No, it isn't. When you solve a problem, the answer is not to panic and legislate that the problem must never be solved. If you have other problems, work on those. We already have plenty of technology for dealing with roads that are dangerous. In general, we handle them by preventing pedestrians from using or crossing them, and providing over- or underpasses. This is superior in every way to adding noisemakers to cars. But it's not necessarily the best solution! It's just one that (a) we already have, and (b) is better than what you're calling a superior alternative. The only reason anyone even considers noisemakers is that they're used to cars that make noise. But a history of doing something the wrong way is a terrible reason to avoid doing it the right way.

kelnos 2y ago

Because my street art, my clothes, my face, and my car aren't trying to psychologically manipulate you into opening your wallet, merely by the fact of their presence. I would hope that you aren't arguing in such bad faith that you can't see that advertising is another thing entirely.

account42 2y ago

Yes? This is why we have or at least used to have obscenity laws. To prevent real-life equivalents of internet trolls from shitting up the public space.