Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

AnimalMuppet

False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes.

[Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited:

Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service.

As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]

View on HN

>Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service.

Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.

The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists. Almost every employer and the government needs roads to operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society functioning. You would have no food, water, or electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.

The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits everyone you just listed.

Then let private motorists pay their share of the upkeep. I'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.

The reality is the opposite, heavy trucks and buses are responsible for practically all road damage.

As road wear and tear is proportional to the third or fourth power of axle weight.

The same logic applies to railways, airports, cargo ships.

In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service.

My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.

I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low income gets them, they get the same importance as the train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of having to use the Lyft or any other app.

Kids already get to use Citi bikes for free, as long as they’re part of certain privileged classes (such as asylum seekers or border crossers).

The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.

> My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.

Is this an argument for public-private deals?

So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.

The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.

You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?

You give money you can't really afford to give in order to get goods that you don't really need. You do so because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are better at manipulating you than you are at not being manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where you cannot help but see them. That's what's wrong about that.

This has little to do with advertising.

Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol.

Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.

> ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich

This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com