zlacker

Why always jump to the extreme that will have almost zero political chance of winning. Billboards sound like a feasible incremental step in a good direction. Start there, everyone sees tangible improvements and is primed to make a bigger leap. Killing an entire industry as step one, is just simply never going to happen, dream on.

As a lot of HN is US based, I’ll just say in our divided bipartisanship state it’s a real shame we’ve forgotten that incremental improvements is always an option and I’d argue usually the best kind.

>>conduc+(OP)
Establishing that you support the extreme action does not mean that you are unwilling to accept incremental action as well.

Let's start by banning billboards, and then let's keep going and ban more forms of mental pollution until the overton window has moved enough that we can entirely ban the ability to pay to control someone's attention.

>>conduc+(OP)
I don't think GP was suggesting this a political policy worth pursuing, but was just stating a preference. And stating an extreme preference does not imply that one would not be pleased with incremental improvement.

I, too, would love it if all advertising just disappeared.

>>Taek+97
The type of comment kind of shuts down discourse is my point. If you want any change you have to approach it with more tact.

>>conduc+(OP)
It isn't a political statement there are other avenues in marketing besides advertising. If a product is genuinely good it should serve on its own. Advertisements lead too much opportunity for exploitation.