The resources used to make the sign don’t come from nowhere. They have go be mined, processed, transported, fabricated into a finished product, and shipped again. That’s a non-zero environmental impact even for a basic non-illuminated sign.
By that logic, having buildings is harmful. You’re never going to achieve zero environmental impact no matter what you do.
But again, not all advertising uses physical resources. If an independent artist shares their work on their social media page for people who want to see their content, that’s advertising, and it’s not a bad thing.
But, of course you’re going to nitpick things to hell until you find the exception.
Edit: Actually, come to think of it, building signage can have a net positive environmental effect. You could easily make a sign with reclaimed lumber or other recycled/upcycled materials.
Buildings provide shelter, advertising provides nothing.
Artists who post their work on social media aren’t advertising unless they are also paying to have their posts injected into the feeds of people who don’t follow them.
You’re talking about targeted advertising, buddy. There’s that nitpicking I was talking about, because targeted advertising isn’t the only advertising there is.
I’m not just talking about targeted advertising, I’m also talking about paid preferential treatment on black-box algorithmic social networks.
A business could self-publish its own newsletter and it wouldn’t be advertisement until they start mailing them to people who didn’t sign up for it. If someone follows an artist on social then they have signed up to see those posts.
By that definition, gossip with friends is advertisement too whenever it mentions a business. It’s an excessively broad view of ads, and that’s coming from an enby that won’t play live service games because of the dark patterns inherent to their design.
Why is a sign on your building harmful?
The resources used to make the sign don’t come from nowhere. They have go be mined, processed, transported, fabricated into a finished product, and shipped again. That’s a non-zero environmental impact even for a basic non-illuminated sign.
By that logic, having buildings is harmful. You’re never going to achieve zero environmental impact no matter what you do.
But again, not all advertising uses physical resources. If an independent artist shares their work on their social media page for people who want to see their content, that’s advertising, and it’s not a bad thing.
But, of course you’re going to nitpick things to hell until you find the exception.
Edit: Actually, come to think of it, building signage can have a net positive environmental effect. You could easily make a sign with reclaimed lumber or other recycled/upcycled materials.
Buildings provide shelter, advertising provides nothing.
Artists who post their work on social media aren’t advertising unless they are also paying to have their posts injected into the feeds of people who don’t follow them.
You’re talking about targeted advertising, buddy. There’s that nitpicking I was talking about, because targeted advertising isn’t the only advertising there is.
I’m not just talking about targeted advertising, I’m also talking about paid preferential treatment on black-box algorithmic social networks.
A business could self-publish its own newsletter and it wouldn’t be advertisement until they start mailing them to people who didn’t sign up for it. If someone follows an artist on social then they have signed up to see those posts.
A self-published newspaper is absolutely an advertisement. So are posts on social media.
Advertising isn’t just pushing things on people who didn’t sign up for it.
By that definition, gossip with friends is advertisement too whenever it mentions a business. It’s an excessively broad view of ads, and that’s coming from an enby that won’t play live service games because of the dark patterns inherent to their design.