[PaulRobinson]

Consider whether advertising at all should be everywhere, not just the brightness of it.

In Brazil, one town banned all advertising hoardings (back when they were just posters), and observed multiple changes in how people felt about the space, including the fact that they were hiding entire favelas ("shantytowns"), that many locals were not really aware of.[1]

It's been a while since I subscribed to Adbusters magazine[2], but I do believe in their central premise that advertising, whether it be in public spaces or online, is harmful to mental health and society, because it perpetuates an unhealthy consumerism, and it distorts truth.

So, I say, don't just make advertising a bit more subdued than an LCD (but not as sustainable as recyclable paper which was fine for a long old time): let's just get rid of it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters

[ToucanLoucan]

I wish I could up this far more than once. Instead of “sustainable” waste, how about just do without ads? Everyone hates them, their effectiveness is murky at the absolute best, and even non-emissive ones are intrusive and obnoxious. We don’t need these things anymore, if I want a new gadget, or lunch, or whatever, I don’t look out at fucking billboards, I pull out my phone and google for nearby businesses or for the gadget I’m after. Public space ads were a shit solution for product discoverability when they were invented, and today they’re completely fucking irrelevant. Most ad tech is to be honest, it’s just an entire industry built of people and companies pretending it’s 1955.

[mazambazz]

You don't need to look at a billboard at the time that you want to buy something related for it to work.

The mere-exposure effect (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect>) is all that is needed.

If ads were "completely fucking irrelevant" then companies wouldn't be spending the large amounts of money that they do on it. I agree that ads are a nuisance, but they're not going to be easy to simply get rid of, as long as money is involved. And considering how tightly coupled finance is with policy nowadays, I find it highly unlikely legislators would pass bills banning public advertisements. Especially when sometimes the government itself is the one getting paid to promote goods and services.

Finally, the issue is also defining what constitutes an advertisement. How do you draw the line between advertisement and free speech? If, theoretically, a very passionate citizen, enjoyed a product so much that they simply wanted to publicly express their satisfaction with it, posted a sign of that expression, does that constitute an advertisement?

If it does, and gets removed, then I'm afraid that's no different than some dystopian form of censorship.

If it doesn't, then it would be trivial for companies to continue advertising, because then every ad could just be re-framed to be the personal expression of an individual.

[latexr]

Another one.

https://archive.ph/2024.07.26-042606/https://www.bloomberg.c...

[HelloMcFly]

I agree with the idea, but I guess this is just one element of life I've accepted that we've lost as a society. I just don't have the energy for every fight. I knock on doors for civil rights, I put on outdoor gear to do wildlife population counts or invasive flora removal, I don't have the energy left for another cause.

[PaulRobinson]

Sure, but it takes a village, and all that. If polling data shows voters resent advertising across their town, you'll find that becomes a key part of messaging and canvassing for votes, so just saying something might be enough.

And we can work together: I don't have time to knock on doors for civil rights or go count lesser-spotted newts, so I'll thank you for what you're doing to make our society better, and I'll go do some lifting on this bit, 'k?