Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by robryk 652 days ago
Is it still not a free action if it replaced an ad?
1 comments

That makes it literally not free - it was paid for with the opportunity cost of the ad.
At a society level, ads are paid for with the opportunity cost of other things that people could be thinking about, e.g. cancer-curing drugs. We can therefore say that ads cause cancer.
Both are at the cost of a generally more tranquil and quiet environment. I would take the most boring, crack-filled and grayest concrete wall over someone else’s messaging whether it is paid for or the agency’s own propaganda.
One of the reasons that people like many tourist destinations is that many tourist destinations forbid most outdoor advertising. It's subtle, probably many tourists don't even realize it, but it changes the entire feel of a place.
Additionally, the ones, whose ad-induced distraction would most benefit society, will not see these ads as they will likely not take the subway.