[helen___keller]

I understand why people hate advertising but if I’m honest, I don’t agree with having an “adfree city”.

I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo). It makes the space feel living, breathing, and alive, which a city should be. And then the visually quiet spaces, like temples and parks, feel much more sweet.

Also at a conceptual level I disagree with the justification that we should make cities adfree due to the harms of ads (described in OP). Ads will appear elsewhere: within stores, online, on top of taxi cabs, stapled to poles, and so on. We can’t make ads disappear. Our best bet is to target specifically the most harmful ads by law (like misleading/false advertising and such).

[Tempest1981]

For me, the ads in Tokyo are unfamiliar, so I can enjoy the colors and energy more. vs say Times Square, where the ads really hit me over the head.

[JAlexoid]

Times Sq is literally the extreme side of ads. It's literally what makes Times Sq - Time Square.

Imagine if NYC banned all visual advertising? One of the most iconic sites of NYC would just disappear.

[orange-mentor]

Real New Yorkers kind of loathe Times Square.

[JAlexoid]

We do. And my office used to be at Bryant Park... I spent a year not stepping into Times Sq, while working right next to it.

[visarga]

> I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo)

Tokyo is visually interesting so could get an exemption. But ads look much uglier in other places, here's a sample:

https://imgur.com/a/6AOWmdC

[tayo42]

It dont think that Tokyo picture is full of ads. While I can't read Japanese, from my trip there, those were mostly listing the stores in the building.

[PeterisP]

I haven't been to Tokyo, however, could it depend on the local focus of the ads?

I.e. I'd consider visual advertising that draws attention to stuff that is right there (e.g. suggesting to visit the store, bar or show behind the door that's below the advert) as completely different as the same size ad for something that's not relevant to physically being then and there (e.g. a car or insurance).

[WWLink]

I don't know. I think there are differences. Like ads on the front of a store (advertising things sold in said store), vs ads when you go to use the gosh darn toilet and a video starts talking to you while you're sitting there.

[matheusmoreira]

Ads in commercial buildings aren't actually ads, they're just information. You walked into a store to see products so the store is merely showing you what you want to see, organized so you can find what you want. Nothing wrong with a sign showing people the name of a business on its own building either, those are actually useful, even for navigation and orientation.

Advertising is when they bombard you with noisy information while you're crossing a street or waiting for the bus. Nothing but pollution.

> We can’t make ads disappear.

We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.

[helen___keller]

> We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.

We can ban ads in certain location/manner/topic but not blanket ban all advertising speech, which would be a 1st amendment issue (and sort of a moot point, it would be politically impossible for something that broad and destructive).

You can get ads off the bus itself but you can’t get ads off the YouTube app the guy next to you is staring at, or the branded swag (that functions as an ad) that this person is wearing.

[nox100]

agreed. I even enjoy reading the ads on the trains in Tokyo. I find out about all kinds of random stuff. There are ads for events, museums, concerts, festivals, condos, other train lines, manga, video games, etc...

[pastacacioepepe]

You don't need ads for that, it could just be art. You could enjoy vibrant artistic billboards without anyone trying to shove products down your throat.

Ever thought of that?

[massysett]

Who is going to pay for them?

[j_maffe]

We will pay for them (through governmental taxes) instead of the advertised products that the advertisements get us to pay for. It's a net-win for the community.

[pastacacioepepe]

It's funny how nobody ever asks this question when the topic is military spending.

[massysett]

Military is a wee bit more necessary than getting rid of billboards, just ask Ukraine.

[dantyti]

The consumer is paying for the ads in the end. This just cuts out the grifters in the middle.

[okr]

To be honest, i have experienced socialist and communist countries, and i never want to go back to this cold, adfree world with its purely functional esthetics. I can understand the aversion for the Ad-Overload, but no Ads, nah, i want it colorful, shiny and blinking. :)

[Nagyman]

I too enjoy colourful and shiny, but adfree does not imply purely functional aesthetics.

Can you imagine another possible scenario?

[paxys]

Is there really no form of public expression you can think of other than commercial advertising?

[okr]

No. Because there is no intention for it, as someone has to pay for it. And who has money to spare? Not the poor. The rich ones, maybe. But they think often economical, otherwise they would not be rich. Or the ones, who can take money from others and redistribute it. Or churches, for example. Have built fantastic buildings.

[felurx]

Lots of people spend money on their hobbies, including art, including art that is meant for others to see and appreciate.

Also, promotion of culture (for example funded by taxes at national or city level) is a thing.

One example, I know of a few graffiti walls near where I live. I'm not sure if the city just allowed the graffitis and the artists paid for supplies themselves of if the city provided them too. I've even heard of cities hiring artists for that.

Sure, electronics are more expensive than spray paint, but definitely not to the point where none of these models could work. Have you ever been at a maker faire? It's amazing what people build (and are willing to spend) just for the heck of creating stuff.

[matheusmoreira]

You can have beautiful architecture, street art as big as buildings. Literally anything is better than advertising.

[arketyp]

They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them. Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question. Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up to the person. Are we so incapacitated we can't just take some personal responsibility and resist in quiet? I find this revolting mob strategy distasteful, honestly.

[digging]

I do suggest you read the FAQ page on the linked site because it answers all of your disagreements. In particular:

> Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence.

Modern ads are so effective at exploiting our minds that their existence is enough to drive our purchases. You don't even have to be aware of them.

> personal responsibility

is never the answer to powerful corporations abusing the public. Vulnerable people do and always will exist.

[Nagyman]

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

> Vulnerable people do and always will exist.

Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike.

I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.

[JAlexoid]

> It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

It seems that you think that banning some ads will make any difference. Ads are really poor at actually convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking... and even then, it's not at 0 today.

You will not want to go to McDonalds, just because you saw an ad for it. You first will have to find it acceptable to go to a fast food restaurant, which is shaped by culture. Then the ad may result in you choosing to go to McDonalds.... but at that point you've already chosen to go to a fast food restaurant.

[marssaxman]

If advertising has so little effect on our behavior as you suppose, surely there can be little harm done by forbidding billboards, as this would force the companies who purchase those ads to save money they are currently wasting.

[JAlexoid]

Way to completely miss my point.

[ThinkBeat]

> They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I DO-NOT want them.

People also want pr0n. Should we paste it all over?

But then all ads are pr0n.

They use vulgar manipulative displays to make you lust and desire something usually with overly attractive people.

pr0n feels more honest in a way.