Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoitwas | Hacker News Reader

I don't like marketers or advertising, but I don't understand what you mean by: "Advertising in public spaces". In the US, advertising is always on private property.

View on HN

Private property visible from a mile away :)

I don't disagree, but how would you propose regulating that? Laws are made with money, so the advertisers win unless we can outspend them. That seems unlikely to me.

Many places have heavily regulated if not outright banned outdoor advertising. Businesses aren't quite as opposed to this as you might expect, since a lot of advertising is done to simply counterbalance the advertising their competitors are doing. If everybody is barred from it, everybody wins.

(Not the marketers). If this sort of logic held, health insurance wouldn't exist. I would love to be proven wrong, but I can't imagine it in U$A.

There are places in the """U$A""" where outdoor advertising is heavily regulated. A handful of states have banned billboards and many more towns have too. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that such bans are constitutional. Advertising companies may piss and shit themselves but pretty much everybody else likes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio...

> Austin is one of 350 cities and towns in Texas that enacted bans related to digital billboards along the sides of highways, generally as a long-term effect of the Highway Beautification Act as well as to avoid distractions for drivers along these highways.

Basically, your defeatism isn't supported by the facts.

Advertising into public spaces.

Some of that "private property" is publicly funded (or at least heavily subsidized) infrastructure.

...which is obviously designed to be maximally visible from the public space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com