5 ms·

Car-only infrastructure which is pervasive in America is a liability to the country and the economy. I can just not buy a TV and my life is great. Probably bet

• kccqzy 2y ago
  That has little to do with advertising though. When you drive, you still see billboards with advertising. When you take public transit, the buses and the trains can have ads inside and outside.
  • ale42 2y ago
    Yes but you don't own the bus/train nor the road with the billboards. But supposedly, you do own the car. Do cars get cheaper by adding ads inside? Nope.
    • gruez 2y ago
      >Yes but you don't own the bus/train nor the road with the billboards. But supposedly, you do own the car As opposed to a TV that you own? You even paid for the cable subscription.
  • exe34 2y ago
    I took the bus from the airport into Istanbul, and it had a horribly bright screen in front of every seat, with flashing adverts and constantly moving - after a flight, I was already feeling nauseous. I managed to cover it with a jacket and ignore the ones further away, but it was a very unpleasant experience.
    • Marsymars 2y ago
      I’d consider a socially positive action to render those screens inoperable.
      • exe34 2y ago
        as a foreigner who didn't speak the local language, I didn't think vandalism was a good idea.
        • Marsymars 2y ago
          Yes, ideally they could be disabled by some enterprising local youths who are too young to face consequences.
  • striking 2y ago
    Yeah, but at least buses and trains are accountable to the voter in one way or another... and I can still wear headphones.
    • gruez 2y ago
      You can vote with your wallet and buy a car that doesn't have ads. The best you can do with ads on buses and trains is show up in your next city council meeting and raise a stink, only to be told that the transit agency signed a 10 year contract and can't pull out.
      • ziddoap 2y ago
        This assumes that no other manufacturer will put ads in their cars. Hopefully that's the case! I think the concern is that once/if a critical mass of manufacturers include in-car ads, the rest can follow (because people still need vehicles in most areas), and the consumer has no more choice.
        • gruez 2y ago
          Is there any reason to believe they won't have a higher ad-free tier instead? If they get $500 LTV from showing ads, why wouldn't they offer a $1000 ad-free subscription? Seems to work fine with streaming platforms, for instance.
          • ziddoap 2y ago
            >Is there any reason to believe they won't have a higher ad-free tier instead? I mean, this is still awful, right? Subscriptions for the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on? >Seems to work fine with streaming platforms, for instance. It's awful here, too, in my opinion. But tolerable because I didn't spend multiple years paying to own the product.
            • gruez 2y ago
              >I mean, this is still awful, right? Subscriptions for the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on? Alternatively framed: $1000/year discount for opting into ads.
  • ziddoap 2y ago
    This sort of misses the point, and treats all advertisement as equally annoying. Advertisements inside my car, especially if the begin to use my speakers, is infinitely more annoying than a billboard (which, yes, is also annoying). Advertisements on trains/etc. are more annoying than billboards, but less annoying than advertisements in something I am supposed to own.
  • ben_w 2y ago
    > When you drive, you still see billboards with advertising. Far more so in the US[0] than in any of the parts of Europe I've lived in or visited[1]. [0] Around much of CA, RI, MA, passing through NV and CT, and the cities of NYC, Salt Lake City and Newark in NY, UT and NJ. [1] Spain, France, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungry, Finland, Greece, Cyprus.
  • cafard 2y ago
    Some states sharply restrict roadside advertising--Maryland does, Pennsylvania doesn't. The bus advertising business seemed to have taken a beating a few years back. It is true that in Washington the bus shelters have ads, often electronic.
  • spudlyo 2y ago
    Whenever AR glasses with ad-blockers are available, I will be an early adopter.
    • codebje 2y ago
      Bold assumption that AR glasses won’t just be a way to deliver more targeted advertising.
      • nickthegreek 2y ago
        In the free market of the future, I’m sure we will have both. It’s just the poor that will need to have their visions modified in their manicured adscapes of despair fashion specs. Also, the poor will be a larger share of the population.
    • INGSOCIALITE 2y ago
      there's probably a huge market for novelty AI glasses that just show messaging from "they live" superimposed over all billboards
  • Marsymars 2y ago
    > When you drive, you still see billboards with advertising. When you take public transit, the buses and the trains can have ads inside and outside. I regularly complain about both of those things to all of the relevant political and transit authorities.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• spicybright 2y ago
  People aren't going to stop using cars because of ads, they're just going to put up with almost anything because they have to in order to survive. The car industry is probably one of the most stable economic pillars the US has.
  • gruez 2y ago
    >The car industry is probably one of the most stable economic pillars the US has. You mean the industry that famously went bankrupt in 2008 and had to be bailed out? Looking at the list of sectors[1], there are plenty of sectors that I think are more stable: Consumer staples, utilities, and healthcare. [1] https://www.sectorspdrs.com/sectortracker https://www.sectorspdrs.com/sectortracker
    • ics 2y ago
      The fact that it was bailed out says something about its place in American society. Stable might not be the best description but it does seem to be one thing which is taken for granted.
      • ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > The fact that it was bailed out says something about its place in American society. Yes. It's extremely well connected to the levers of power. Other examples would include the protectionist legislation offered when they were getting their shit rocked by Asia the last time around, in the 70's, every time we've gone to war overseas for oil, and the CAFE standards which have generous exemptions for all the vehicles they actually make money on because no other manufacturers bother to make 3 ton trucks for suburbanites.
      • aziaziazi 2y ago
        > it’s cultural first class because it’s so stable > it’s so stable because it’s a cultural first class Looks biased from an outsider view but I guess most cultural habits gets biased at some point.
    • tmpz22 2y ago
• XorNot 2y ago
  Or you know...we could just not put ads in cars. People get so weird about easily solvable problems, like the developer who gets tasked to make the button red and instead writes an entire theme engine abstraction even though there's exactly one user.
  • ziddoap 2y ago
    >People get so weird about easily solvable problems Please tell me how I, someone who doesn't manufacture cars, can easily solve the problem of manufacturers choosing to put advertisements in cars?
• SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  I think its more than just a "few selection locations". Its the majority of major metropolitan areas. Especially with Uber, Doordash, Instacart, etc. Having a car is almost a liability in many instances. Now I agree this gets to be a dodgy proposition if you have kids, and the further out you are from major pop centers. Suburbs maybe, rural areas are definitely out. I did for many years and definitely contributed to the economy
• psunavy03 2y ago
  At some point I really don't get how people can't just accept that historically, the US is a car-centric suburban-centric culture, and that's just who we largely are. If you want to do things like improve the environment, you can either scream and stamp your feet about it or you can meet people where they are and devise solutions that work in a car-centric culture. It just is what it is, like Brits drinking tea, Scandinavians liking their saunas, or the French being obnoxious about Frenchness.
  • malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    You need to be a student of history, otherwise you’ll be blinded by the present and make these kinds of very wrong conclusions. The US was the world leader in railroads. US cities had state of the rail based public transit systems. LA had the most extensive streetcar system in the world. Even St Louis used to be as accessible as NYC. People changed because corporations lied to the public and meticulously destroyed public transit in the US. People can change again.
    • malcolmgreaves 2y ago
      Too late to edit, but I wanted to say — apologies for being condescending. That was unnecessary and mean spirited of me and I’m sorry for doing that. Truthfully, I do hope at least I was able to communicate that it’s important to keep in mind that there have been other things we’ve done as a society and there are reasons why we are where we are today.
  • marssaxman 2y ago
    That's a shallow, post-WWII vision of history. The US used to build great cities, then it bulldozed large parts of them to build the present highway-oriented dystopia. If one radical change was possible then, so is another, now. The car-centric, suburb-centric culture cannot be sustained economically or ecologically, and will therefore come to an end. How do we want that to happen - intentionally and progressively, or catastrophically?
  • ericmay 2y ago
    I don't think your historical analysis is very correct. What you think of as car-centric suburban-centric culture didn't really arise until after World War II. It's really a relatively new thing, even considering how young the United States is. Obesity rates track historically with car-centric culture, should we just accept that is who we are, or can we work on cultural and policy changes that alleviate that problem? Other countries like the Netherlands went through the same car-centric design phase and realized it was too expensive and bad for the country so they reverted. We can and should keep cars, but our reliance on them for our very existence is quite fragile and unnecessary. Why does the average American have to spend $300 - $800/month or more in direct costs (insurance, gasoline, tires, loan payments, etc.) plus indirect costs (taxes for infrastructure) in order to go to the grocery store to buy a tomato or take their children to a playground? > If you want to do things like improve the environment, you can either scream and stamp your feet about it or you can meet people where they are and devise solutions that work in a car-centric culture. Instead of "screaming and stamping my feet" - isn't that what Road Rage is? I prefer to just work with organizations and political leaders to devise and implement solutions that reduce our need for car-centric culture and improve our economic resilience. That means fewer surface parking lots which are economic outflows, more bike lanes, slower speed limits, and better roadway design that incorporates segmented bike lanes, bus lanes, and more.