Hacker News Reader

Couldn't the argument be made that if you don't want their ads to go into your brain that you shouldn't visit their site? It's sort of a case of "their house their rules" right? I tend to agree that it'd be nice to be able to avoid the ads, but they have to earn operating revenue somehow.

View on HN

I don't think so - again if we're agreed I have full sovereignty of my body and therefore have the right to control which photons reach my brain. This ought to apply - like all fundamental rights - in all circumstances and contexts.

If we follow that argument out wouldn't that mean that you would have the right to control what anyone said or wore in public? If I'm wearing a purple shirt in the park and you go to the park you don't have the right to stop me from wearing my purple shirt just because it annoys you.

Btw, since comment sections make it hard for the reader to discern tone I'm simply trying to explore this argument, please don't take offense to the continued questioning.

Right - these rights don't let me stop you from wearing a particular shirt, but I think they reasonably let me control what I am able to see or hear(given a mechanism available to do that). For example I think a reasonable interpretation is that I ought to be entitled to wear headphones that filter out words I might find offensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com