A global movement to ban urban billboards
People dislike pervasive advertising because it becomes clear that you are a pawn in the game. This grates, consciously or subconsciously. The dissonant suspicion that you're a bit-player in a game from which you derive no benefit (while others gain massively) underpins sentiment in a number of recent threads: the role of universities [1], the influence of money on research [2], motor vehicle emissions [3].<p>We don't like being played for fools, and some of us feel that pervasive advertising does exactly that.<p>But what of the "benefits" of advertising? Free access to content, for instance.<p>Well that's only "free as in beer". Ad-funded content on the internet, or in print, confuses "free as in beer" with "free as in speech". It assumes that if I can get something for free, then I'm happy to exchange it for something else; that I'm happy to accept content in exchange for my attention being drawn to goods and services that want my money.<p>Personally, I'm not happy with that. I never opted-in, and I can't (easily) opt out.<p>Billboard advertising is irritating because of exactly this reason: no opt out.<p>People who disagree (or simply don't sympathise) with my sentiments probably feel happy to exchange their liberty for advertising. Fair enough -- I don't wish to persuade or disuade. I would, however, like the capacity to make my own choice.<p>People who think we do have a choice -- it's very, very limited. It seems that every square inch of publicly-visible surface in major cities could be scooped up by advertisers. Risers on staircases; LED billboards on top of taxis; it's getting ridiculous.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372181" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372181</a><p>[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372446" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372446</a><p>[3] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10354127" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10354127</a>