Hacker News Reader

The opinion is tautological, there is no real difference.

>ambient light entering private space as a side effect of projecting a message elsewhere

Advertisements are not designed to be projected anywhere else besides your psyche.

>focused light entering the same space with the intent of creating the message within the space.

Again, visual advertisements are focused light created with the intent of inserting a message into your eyes and psyche.

View on HN

The difference is that the ambient advertisement doesn't meaningfully change the appearance of your piece of property. And in any case, you have no legal right to shut out the world.

>The difference is that the ambient advertisement doesn't meaningfully change the appearance of your piece of property.

Property: a thing or things belonging to someone.

Do our minds not belong to us?

I just wanted to say this exchange about whether advertising can be likened to trespass and vandalism has been very thought provoking. Your argument holds water. Have an up-vote.

If you're redefining property that way, sure. But of course that's wrong in the legal sense. You've never had a legal right to control what enters your eyes and ears.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com