Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Its voluntary and you need to deliberately watch them. They're not planted to catch your attention in ANNOYING ways.


I would say the same about anything on the road that isn't specifically for safety/traffic shaping.

> They're not planted to catch your attention in ANNOYING ways.

Even some of traffic shaping signage are specifically designed to be that way.

More importantly, this is about a freedom of expression. If I want to yell about my fruit farm or hold a sign for your product; is that different? How does the freedom to express yourself contend with some idea of limiting "commercial advertisement"?


Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. And, on top of that, a driver doesn't have the freedom to completely ignore the expression (not yet). I can ignore some yelling fellow on a market (never liked that annoying, noisy shit either btw) with noisecancelling earplugs. One can't drive with a blindfold. I'm sure there is gonna be QQ over AR in driving, partly justified. However, less is more. Plus, AR could allow you to get traffic signs in a HUD. Can't miss them.


> Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers.

That wasn't the point, although you are tacitly advancing the idea that annoying signage is acceptable whenever you think it's fine AND what you "watch" is voluntary. You're halfway there. There's not much to be gained from logically stepping you through it.

> Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road.

Given the kind of answers you are providing, I don't think you've thought any of these things through. GL with whatever.


I have thought it through very well, and my logic is consistent. Acceptible or not depends on 1) if it is useful in the situation (traffic signs are, for driver safety; advertising isn't) 2) whether the receiver can block the ad with technology (not yet possible on road with advertising). You can ridicule me all you want. 33% of all internet users decided to use an ad blocker. They do not want to get distracted by silly skyscrapers, popups, flashy sounds, large irrelevant banners, and so on and so forth.


If you can be materially distracted from driving by a banner on the side of the road, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

If you are annoyed by a passive banner on the side of a road, then I wonder if you must be annoyed by someone saying Hi passing by. Noisy shit, eh?


> If you can be materially distracted from driving by a banner on the side of the road, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

So if I browse a website and get distracted by all the ads, it is my own fault? This is victim blaming, as well as a dishonest take on the matter. There's not one banner on the road. Its distraction upon distraction upon distraction. Its like with smartphones. The problem isn't that someone quickly glances on their smartphone once. It is continuous distraction, on the wrong moment.

> If you are annoyed by a passive banner on the side of a road, then I wonder if you must be annoyed by someone saying Hi passing by. Noisy shit, eh?

This has a social function, its a two way benefit. Advertising isn't. Its a one-way communication. You can't talk back. Also, I already explained we can filter sound completely.


> So if I browse a website and get distracted by all the ads, it is my own fault?

At a certain point, yes - if the ad doesn’t take a major portion of your screen and is non-interactive. You are not a victim - there are reasonable boundaries of being “annoyed”.

> This has a social function, its a two way benefit. Advertising isn't. Its a one-way communication.

Not really. You could’ve easily claimed “I don’t GAF who you are and don’t say Hi to me”. The one-sidedness is an arbitrary constraint you’ve put to try to reject this scenario - it should have no bearing on the annoyingness of the sound waves.


> At a certain point, yes - if the ad doesn’t take a major portion of your screen and is non-interactive. You are not a victim - there are reasonable boundaries of being “annoyed”.

That's a too liberal definition. Consider our boundaries getting broken. I am not talking about one ad banner on the a website. I am talking about skyscrapers, pop-ups (actually banned by default on modern browsers), multiple flashy GIFs as banner (like in the 90s), sounds in ads (working on a tab you're not even on!). These are all examples of annoying ads. I'd care less for an ad which is obvious like how Google text Ads used to be on Google Search.

> You could’ve easily claimed “I don’t GAF who you are and don’t say Hi to me”.

Yeah, its funny how in USA its normal that if I go in a grocery store, people ask 'how are you' but they don't care about the answer, they're obliged to say it. I'm glad we don't have that nonsense dishonesty here in my country.

'Hi', however, is fairly neutral, in this example is person to person (instead of tech to person), and means no harm. Its a greeting, supposedly to start contact, or to initialize a business transaction (such as payment). Its as honest and functional as it gets!


> Yeah, its funny how in USA its normal that if I go in a grocery store, people ask 'how are you' but they don't care about the answer, they're obliged to say it

Wow, in most cases this just isn't true. Granted some employees are ordered to use it as a greeting, but most people who ask genuinely care, and there is no social expectation to ask. Perhaps the culture in the USA is just a bit more personable than you have a theory of mind for? If you really don’t believe me, try answering the question in the negative, theres a reason why its like a joke that you have to respond positively. You’ll instantly be asked whats bothering you, and most people won’t let go easily. They genuinely want to try to cheer you up if you aren’t doing well and if they think they can reasonably help you, generally will.


Been there, done it (Southern Bay Area 2005-2007). I am honest by default when it comes to questions. There is practically no interest in a conversation. You are supposed to say 'fine, how are you'. Its like regarding tipping culture as voluntary: fake.


> I am talking about skyscrapers, pop-ups (actually banned by default on modern browsers), multiple flashy GIFs as banner (like in the 90s), sounds in ads (working on a tab you're not even on!).

The issue was about the real world anyway; in the case of a website, you were the one who request the website be displayed on your computer (that's what the browser does).

In the real world, however, ads are simple banners like the Google text Ads.

> I'm glad we don't have that nonsense dishonesty here in my country.

It's not dishonest even if your interpretation were true, because both parties know it's just another form of greeting.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: