[ldjb]

The impact isn't merely aesthetic.

For one thing, it can be costly to remove graffiti. And when it's on publicly owned property, who pays for that removal? The public, of course.

If, for example, a train is the target of graffiti, it will often need to be taken out of service. This, then, results in a degraded service to the travelling public.

Furthermore, graffiti artists often put themselves in dangerous situations. Numerous people have been seriously injured or killed when doing graffiti. That not only sucks for them, but also has various knock-on effects.

Some graffiti art can look really nice, whereas others have little artistic value. Regardless, the negative impacts of graffiti should not be overlooked.

[thuuuomas]

> The impact isn't merely aesthetic. For one thing, it can be costly to remove graffiti.

The cost incurred here is a choice the owner makes when they disagree with the aesthetics of the graffiti.

[ldjb]

We're talking about public property here. Many authorities have a 'no tolerance' approach to graffiti. Even if it looks nice, it will be removed. There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. If graffiti artists find that their work won't last long, they may be discouraged from doing it in the first place. Aesthetics doesn't really come into it.

[sircastor]

But that cost is not paid by the person creating the graffiti. The owner has a cost forced on them.

The aesthetic argument here is trying to validate a violent act. A lot of graffiti is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.

[tpm]

No, the owner or rather operator (if the carriage is publicly owned) might be legally obliged to remove it just for the carriage identification to be clearly visible, the windows to be clean etc.

[subjectsigma]

This has got to be the most insane comment in this thread.

“Hey, I’m going to hold a gun to your head. If you don’t give me $100 I’ll shoot you. Remember though that the cost incurred here is a choice you’re going to make if you disagree with my actions. I can’t truly force you to do anything…”

[wiseowise]

Nice.

I'm going to spray a can of paint on your car and explain to judge that "it's thuuuomas's problem now, since he disagrees with aesthetics of his new car color".

[matrix_overload]

Why does this comment read like it's written by AI?

[ben_w]

Possibly because AI was trained on humans.

The "furthermore" and the "Regardless, the negative impacts of graffiti should not be overlooked" do feel a bit AI-esq these days, but it was only yesterday that I myself felt like I was writing like an LLM by responding to a "you misunderstood, I meant …" with an "ah, now I understand": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40380692

[saagarjha]

Because the only other group of people who use transitions so often are third graders making sentences from templates.

[walterbell]

Observations affect the observer?

[ldjb]

In a democratic society, if citizens are particularly concerned about the aesthetics of public property, they can make their views known to the relevant authorities and elected representatives, and it could even become an election issue. I think that's far better than citizens fighting with paint.

[rjh29]

Broken window theory. Once a few things have graffiti, it will quickly proliferate including stuff that isn't exactly aesthetic.

[nextaccountic]

Why remove it?

[stormking]

Because 99.99% of it is shit and the rest is barely above shit.