3 ms·
> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who
by chii 2y ago
> it kinda sucks for the person who actually is interested in the thing that billboard is advertising
and it also sucks for the billboard's location owner, who is drawing a revenue from it.
People who proclaim that doing XYZ to make the world better, is not really considering the entirety of the world - just their corner. To claim that it would make the world better, they must show evidence that it doesn't hurt somebody else (who just happens to be in a different tribe to the proposer).
- barrell 2y agoBut it’s kind of great for the upshot who can’t afford the spot of the billboard like the incumbent can. And it’s kind of great for the (dozens, hundreds, thousand, millions) of people to pass by the location who don’t have some eye soar blocking their view. Your argument is basically that there are some people who benefit from advertising—I promise you anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact.
- chii 2y ago> anyone antagonistic toward advertising has considered this fact. and yet, the apparent disregard for the interests of those currently benefiting from advertising is dismissed as mere trifles, not worthy of compensation. Policy suggestions should not be so one sided. I would always use the veil of ignorance, and ensure that any policy suggestion go through this retorical device.
- verve_rat 2y agoIs your veil weighted? It is not equally likely you will benefit from advertising as it is likely you will be harmed by advertising under a veil of ignorance scenario.