Hacker News Reader

Comment by BLKNSLVR | Hacker News Reader

Specifically addressed in the article:

"I’m not talking about breaking into your neighbor’s house at 3:00 a.m. to rummage through their stuff for drugs or money. This is the mental image that most of us probably associate with trespassing—"

However if you were making a "tragedy of the commons" reference, then I'd be more inclined to agree.

Edited to add: But, yes, the article's headline and intro is a front for the author's argument against growing corporate ownership of the planet.

I tend to agree with the point being made, so I'm less likely to get snarky about "evil corporations" etc.

View on HN

The author specifically differentiates between personal (neighbour-owned and not ok to trespass) and private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category.

Realize, you are talking about a publication that was started by a Kickstarter campaign that raised $16,000 [1], which is assembled in the living room of the EiC's apartment [2], and has a handful of full-time employees at most. The author doesn't have the sort of office you presume he does.

[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affai...

[2] https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-...

Well I do have an office of the sort that you're presuming that I'm presuming that he does, and so does most of the people in this thread, even the ones railing against the evils of The System. Unless he's doing this thing out of his mom's basement, I'm sticking with my wish for stoner teens.

I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.

Stoner teens would grow up to be part of the author's target demographic.

Your analogy would be better if it was along the lines of a corporate boardroom-stalker trespassing their way into the author's home office, complaining about how cramped it is and that the view is worthless, but then still contemplating buying it up as an investment for the future.

The author's argument (and it takes a while for the article to get there) is much more systemically fundamental than "corporate trespass good", "personal trespass bad".

>I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.

I doubt it - some unknown dudebro passed out on your carpet in a pool of their bodily fluids seems like too much to deal with at 3am for a poor reporter with writer's block.

I think you're confusing "stoner" with hardcore alcoholic, or perhaps a heroin/meth user?

What's there for me to presume? You stated your presumption quite clearly:

"... private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category."

"Corporate owned" being ok to trespass doesn't seem quite right. I would think it would be more like actively used vs. abandoned. Breaking into an active warehouse or corporate office seems to be a lot more dubious than breaking into an abandoned factory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com