Billboard Porn And Disobedience Call Attention To the Obvious

I just realized that the two posts before this one compliment each other nicely. In the first post, the authors of Property Outlaws put forth a theory that certain levels of property disobedience should be tolerated as they can often lead to the dissemination of information which serves a public good and thus outweighs the initial transgression. In the second post, we have a clear example of someone breaking property laws by hacking someones private property and using it for their own devices. Moscow's reaction is to punish this behavior, but if we think about the assertion Property Outlaws makes, this might not be the most appropriate response. In fact we might want to look at what "information" has been gained from this act of disobedience.

Advertising might not be as shocking as pornography but the intended result in this situation is the same, grab, and hold, a viewers attention for as long as possible. The fact that cars ground to a halt on a highway shows the digital video medium is affective, whether or not the content is equally matched is up for debate. I would mention that if advertisers could halt traffic with an ad campaign, they would jump at the opportunity. So if the interest is the same only advertising is less affective, what are we doing letting drivers be pulled from the duty at hand simply to sell them crap. We don't let people talk on cell phones, or even text for that matter. Why would we allow an ad company the right to distract, us even for a moment, just so they can sell us one more can of sugar water?

In this way I think the Moscow hactivist's dirty work constitutes a protest, interested in creating a public dialogue around the issue of digital advertising signage on highways. His act should not be looked at as someone harmfully breaking the law but rather someone using disobedience to open the eyes of the public to the potential dangers of digital signage on the road.