Arbiters of attention

We’re all in a dogfight for attention. But beyond the incredibly dull discourse around what attention-grabbing attempts are good (SubReddit Hunt) and which are bad (take your pick, there are a lot), there is increasing discussion around what is allowed.

This week, a debate broke out around the continued use of the 170 metre-long billboard on the Glebe Island silos. Eye Drive Sydney is offering Inner West Council $127,000 a year to have brands’ latest creations loom over Anzac Bridge, but some aren’t happy.

City of Sydney Council chief planner Graham Jahn labelled the billboard a “blight on the Sydney skyline”, which seems a bit rich given he presumably had a hand in the now ubiquitous digital displays crowding the streets across his jurisdiction. 

In Denmark, the agency for palaces and culture is removing Copenhagen’s Den Store Havfrue (The Big Mermaid), a large statue that features, well, look at the image above. The sculptor’s offer to donate his creation was declined on the basis it “takes up a lot of space”. 

Inevitably, AI content has a role too.

The Productivity Commission announced it is considering exempting technology companies from copyright rules to help fuel AI capabilities, a suggestion that led to an immediate pile on.

Meanwhile, laws to disclose AI use in real estate are making their way through the NSW Parliament, with a recent listing for a two bed unit in Leichhardt featuring, erm, beachfront views doing a handy job of proving their worth.

In reality, attempting to affix guardrails to the attention economy is largely pointless. Content moves faster than any government or regulator could hope to, and any debate around whether something is allowed simply adds fuel to the fire.

Which is why Den Store Havfrue will probably now become a Danish natural treasure.