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].We don't like being played for fools, and some of us feel that pervasive advertising does exactly that.But what of the "benefits" of advertising? Free access to content, for instance.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.Personally, I'm not happy with that. I never opted-in, and I can't (easily) opt out.Billboard advertising is irritating because of exactly this reason: no opt out.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.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.[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372181[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372446[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10354127