[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.