Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by caesil | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

caesil

This is like saying you should have the right to walk into Walmart without seeing signs saying things are on sale.

YouTube is a business and no one is making you visit that website.

View on HN

Private life.

Did you miss those key words?

it's more accurate to say walmart bursts into my home, sales banners FIRST, then only after i've assured them i've seen their banners, do they show me their goods available, in my own home, remember.

there's nuance clearly. "i go to youtube" etc. but also, youtube comes to me. i do think i should have the right to reject packets at the protocol level.

It's more like you invited Walmart to come over, held the door wide open for them, and then officially announced the vampire is welcome to come into your home. Nothing about Walmart showing up to your house is a surprise nor something you didn't want to happen

What? No. Not even close. You issued an HTTP request to youtube.com and asked them to send you some data back. This is not at all an uninvited intrusion. Stop being ridiculous.

well yes! i don't deny, but this is why the thought experiment is fun.

i did open my door, but also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold?

packet by packet. why not!

Also... what if you requested water? Would you have a right to it being clean?

The fact that you initiate the interaction is not on its own free license to force feed you whatever the requestee pleases.

i'm not entitled to receive clean water, but i can reject dirty water.

edit: this is fun. i can see that it's actually "filter" the water to still take it and reject only what i deem dirt. and the water provider doesn't like that.

In most developed countries you do have a right to clean water. And depending on the framework you're looking at (eg.: UN), humans in general do have a right to clean water (even if this right is frequently not protected).

if this wasn't a thing Britta wouldn't exist

You're free to tell your invited guest that they have over stayed their welcome at any time. It's usually in the shape of "x" if you use a mouse or ctrl/cmd-w if you're a keyboard warrior

> also do i not have the right to still arbitrate what passes my dear home's threshold? packet by packet. why not!

You do! But so does YouTube![1] If they don't want to serve you the video they don't have to, either. And that's what's happening here. I'm amazed to see arguments like this up at the top of the page.

To take your point maybe more seriously than it deserves: this seems like maybe an argument for socialized media hosting. You're saying the capitalist ad economy isn't equitable or fair or just (or frankly maybe just not doing what you want), and that you think this should be something the government pays for in the aim of general societal benefit.

And... I don't know that I completely disagree? But if you want that you need to go there and have the argument, not just demand that the corporate overlord enemy of the week give you free stuff.

[1] Or any other media site with adblockblocking, YouTube is hardly alone here.

Websites are supposed to work on the basis of a request: you request something, they can decide to serve it or not. But they were never meant to work on the basis of a request that is only satisfied if you accept these piggybacked garbage requests as well and testify that you have consumed them. That's a perversion.

Capitalism and socialism are not all-or-nothing.

I don't see people getting upset at the special relationship between government and power companies or telephone companies.

By all means, "drop the packets at the protocol level". Why do you think you don't have the right to do it?

Oh, you don't know which packets to drop? That's a real shame.

"The fact that something is not forbidden" is different from "the existence of a positive right to something". In the latter case, there would probably need to be a relatively convenient opt-out mechanism.

Your comment is a bit like saying... "The right to potable water is not violated because individuals are free to build their own desalination plants and move closer to the ocean. Oh, they don't have the resources to do that? That's unfortunate."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com