5 ms·

Banksy says it best: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you fr

Banksy says it best: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

dredmorbius 12y ago
Nice. Just sourcing that: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/461383-people-are-taking-the-piss-out-of-you-everyday-they http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/461383-people-are-taking-the...
- Schlaefer 12y ago
  But how does it apply? A website is hardly a "public space". This quote makes no sense in the virtual world where everyone can build his own planet without ads if he wants to. Space is not limited here.
  - Fuzzwah 12y ago
    I think that the quote works for Internet advertising because the similarity is that the bus company or building owner, like a web site owner, chooses to take money from advertising companies because they offer the best return vs effort return. For their money the ad companies try to jam their message into your brain.
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    The website as it displays on your computer using your computer memory and screen and CPU is your space, not the website's. So what Banksy says is even more true. To use your analogy, your computer is your planet. If websites don't like that their ads can't get past your customs officers, that's their problem.
    - Schlaefer 12y ago
      But I'm voluntarily visiting the place! Of course I'm using my resources doing that. What's next: let the cooking magazine pay your electricity bill, because you decided to try out their recipe? Let the cinema pay for your glasses? If your memory, screen or CPU is precious, don't visit that site. You know the deal and you have a free will. Use it.
      - zevyoura 12y ago
        >But I'm voluntarily visiting the place! Of course I'm using my resources doing that. You could say this about the in person advertising that Banksy describes too.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        And the site is voluntarily serving you their content. Your cooking magazine argument is specious: you're not requesting the website pay your bills. The analog would be a magazine which assaults you with inserts, pop-ups, fragrance scents, a 90:10 advertising-to-copy ratio (and most of the copy is product placements), and charges you $10+ for the privilege. Oh yeah: that's what they do. Which is why I don't buy magazines (with very rare exceptions).
StavrosK 12y ago
The salient part is "public space". Websites aren't public space.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  > Websites aren't public space. The internet is.
- EvanAnderson 12y ago
  A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used. If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust.
  - freyr 12y ago
    > A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used. Who cares if it's _your_ computer? It's _their_ product or service you're using, which is offered to you under well-defined terms of use. You're free to not use it if you don't agree with the terms of use. Let's assume that breaking the terms of use is illegal or immoral. Then how does doing it on _your_ computer absolve you of responsibility? A person's basement is also _his_ private space. Should he have free reign to hold people there against their will? Having a private space doesn't give you carte blanche, especially when other people are involved (e.g. the people who built the products or services you're using). > If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust. The essence of your argument is that whenever you can screw somebody over and they're powerless to stop you, it's their fault when you screw them over. This is not an argument I'd be proud to make. By this logic, a local convenience store that hasn't installed security cameras is at fault when you steal from them, because they misplaced their trust in their customers. A woman walking alone at night is at fault when someone attacks her, because she misplaced her trust in society. By the way, I use AdBlock. But I don't think your attempts at ethically justifying AdBlock hold any water.
micampe 12y ago
> Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law […] > Any advert in a public space [is] yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. I feel pretty confident in saying AdBlock is not what he had in mind there. Ironically, you just manipulated his words to your advantage, which is exactly what he advocates in that quote.
wutbrodo 12y ago
You've entirely misunderstood both Banksy's quote and the conversation on this thread. He's talking about the co-opting of _public spaces_ for advertisement; Walking down the street is an activity that anyone has a right to do with no contingencies, and he sees being "forced" to see advertising as an intrusion on that activity. Whether or not you agree with him, that's certainly an internally consistent view of things. On the other hand, what we're talking about here is explicitly choosing to request content from a webpage and then complaining that the ads are an intrusion. There's no analogue to "walking through a public space": no fundamental right to view content that other people made on exactly the terms that you deem acceptable. As poor a comparison as it may be, the comparison to shoplifting is FAR more accurate than the comparison to what Banksy is describing.
- Executor 12y ago
  What if I click an unknown link that sends me to a popup page that I didn't consent to going to? They would be getting benefit at my expense.
thehooplehead 12y ago
I like this quote, it's well laid-out, but I don't think the reasoning is sound. At heart, the argument it voices anger at advertisers for forcing you to see things you don't want to see and feel things you don't want to feel. That's exactly the reasoning used to limit individual freedom of expression in many places. It creates a victim (the passive observer) in order to vilify an otherwise victimless crime (the person expressing themselves). For the record, I hate ads too, but I see it as a fair exchange. Below, I've streamlined and abstracted the quote. If you stuck "women" where I say "insert target," this would mirror a lot of really repressive hate speech that's going on in many parts of the world. >> People are taking the piss out of you everyday... [They] take a cheap shot at you and then disappear... [They] make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making [you] feel inadequate. They have access and they bully you with it. They are (insert target) and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head... You owe [them] nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Nice. Just sourcing that: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/461383-people-are-taking-the-piss-out-of-you-everyday-they http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/461383-people-are-taking-the...

Schlaefer 12y ago
But how does it apply? A website is hardly a "public space". This quote makes no sense in the virtual world where everyone can build his own planet without ads if he wants to. Space is not limited here.
- Fuzzwah 12y ago
  I think that the quote works for Internet advertising because the similarity is that the bus company or building owner, like a web site owner, chooses to take money from advertising companies because they offer the best return vs effort return. For their money the ad companies try to jam their message into your brain.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  The website as it displays on your computer using your computer memory and screen and CPU is your space, not the website's. So what Banksy says is even more true. To use your analogy, your computer is your planet. If websites don't like that their ads can't get past your customs officers, that's their problem.
  - Schlaefer 12y ago
    But I'm voluntarily visiting the place! Of course I'm using my resources doing that. What's next: let the cooking magazine pay your electricity bill, because you decided to try out their recipe? Let the cinema pay for your glasses? If your memory, screen or CPU is precious, don't visit that site. You know the deal and you have a free will. Use it.
    - zevyoura 12y ago
      >But I'm voluntarily visiting the place! Of course I'm using my resources doing that. You could say this about the in person advertising that Banksy describes too.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      And the site is voluntarily serving you their content. Your cooking magazine argument is specious: you're not requesting the website pay your bills. The analog would be a magazine which assaults you with inserts, pop-ups, fragrance scents, a 90:10 advertising-to-copy ratio (and most of the copy is product placements), and charges you $10+ for the privilege. Oh yeah: that's what they do. Which is why I don't buy magazines (with very rare exceptions).

StavrosK 12y ago

The salient part is "public space". Websites aren't public space.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago
> Websites aren't public space. The internet is.
EvanAnderson 12y ago
A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used. If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust.
- freyr 12y ago
  > A website displays on _my_ computer. I should have more control over that "space" than a "public space", for sure. There's nothing wrong with wanting complete control of how my computer is being used. Who cares if it's _your_ computer? It's _their_ product or service you're using, which is offered to you under well-defined terms of use. You're free to not use it if you don't agree with the terms of use. Let's assume that breaking the terms of use is illegal or immoral. Then how does doing it on _your_ computer absolve you of responsibility? A person's basement is also _his_ private space. Should he have free reign to hold people there against their will? Having a private space doesn't give you carte blanche, especially when other people are involved (e.g. the people who built the products or services you're using). > If the business model of the advertisers requires that they trust that my computer displays their ads then I see it as their fault for misplacing their trust. The essence of your argument is that whenever you can screw somebody over and they're powerless to stop you, it's their fault when you screw them over. This is not an argument I'd be proud to make. By this logic, a local convenience store that hasn't installed security cameras is at fault when you steal from them, because they misplaced their trust in their customers. A woman walking alone at night is at fault when someone attacks her, because she misplaced her trust in society. By the way, I use AdBlock. But I don't think your attempts at ethically justifying AdBlock hold any water.

micampe 12y ago

> Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law […] > Any advert in a public space [is] yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. I feel pretty confident in saying AdBlock is not what he had in mind there. Ironically, you just manipulated his words to your advantage, which is exactly what he advocates in that quote.

wutbrodo 12y ago

You've entirely misunderstood both Banksy's quote and the conversation on this thread. He's talking about the co-opting of _public spaces_ for advertisement; Walking down the street is an activity that anyone has a right to do with no contingencies, and he sees being "forced" to see advertising as an intrusion on that activity. Whether or not you agree with him, that's certainly an internally consistent view of things. On the other hand, what we're talking about here is explicitly choosing to request content from a webpage and then complaining that the ads are an intrusion. There's no analogue to "walking through a public space": no fundamental right to view content that other people made on exactly the terms that you deem acceptable. As poor a comparison as it may be, the comparison to shoplifting is FAR more accurate than the comparison to what Banksy is describing.

Executor 12y ago
What if I click an unknown link that sends me to a popup page that I didn't consent to going to? They would be getting benefit at my expense.

thehooplehead 12y ago

I like this quote, it's well laid-out, but I don't think the reasoning is sound. At heart, the argument it voices anger at advertisers for forcing you to see things you don't want to see and feel things you don't want to feel. That's exactly the reasoning used to limit individual freedom of expression in many places. It creates a victim (the passive observer) in order to vilify an otherwise victimless crime (the person expressing themselves). For the record, I hate ads too, but I see it as a fair exchange. Below, I've streamlined and abstracted the quote. If you stuck "women" where I say "insert target," this would mirror a lot of really repressive hate speech that's going on in many parts of the world. >> People are taking the piss out of you everyday... [They] take a cheap shot at you and then disappear... [They] make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making [you] feel inadequate. They have access and they bully you with it. They are (insert target) and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head... You owe [them] nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you.