Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

I understand that's the culture we've established. If a company has your address, it is currently acceptable for them to send you infinite electronic marketing nonsense in an attempt to manipulate you into being a profitable resource for them.

My point is that it's not how it normally works with humans. If a person did this, it would be creepy and controlling. But when a group of people does it because it might make them money, it's ok to blame the person they're bothering.

I get your perspective and agree that it is, for the moment, the dominant one. I just disagree that it's weird to think otherwise.

View on HN

I apologize if it seems like I'm making a moral judgement.

I don't think it's any more ideal to have to opt out of communications, I'm merely saying that expecting not to have to opt out is a misjudgement.

I'd rather more closely understand reality than hope it gives me exactly what I want. Facebook does not owe me anything.

well to be fair it is how it normally works with humans. If someone has your physical address they can send you as much junk as they want in the mail. It's not really different online.

Normal human interaction is not conducted mostly by post.

So snail mail isn't a good standard for email...what is a good standard?

A good standard is another question. We're discussing what standards are weird. I am saying that normal human interaction is not a weird standard. Neither is paper mail.

Although when bringing up paper mail, we should note there are many different standards. Are we talking the standards of 1792, when the USPS was created? Perhaps we use the 1879 mail classification act? The 1920s, when the Direct Mail Advertising Association was formed? How about around the time of the junk mail controversy of 1953? Or perhaps 1970, when Chief Justice Warren Berger wrote, "Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com