4 ms·
I see this as a double-edged sword. I think people should have the right to block ads, but sites should also have the right to block your access to their conten
by Overtonwindow 10y ago
I see this as a double-edged sword. I think people should have the right to block ads, but sites should also have the right to block your access to their content. It's the same no-shirt no service rules for businesses. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but no one has a legal right to gain access to the data on a website. If that website chooses to restrict access that's their problem. I and others will just go somewhere else.
- joshmanders 10y agoNot enough people understand this. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
- dwaltrip 10y agoYour point is a good one. However, it doesn't imply that HN must allow these sites to be posted. I don't have an opinion on whether HN should make such a change, but just wanted to connect your statement to the question at hand.
- Overtonwindow 10y agoA fair point. I think HN should let these sites be published because it gives us all the knowledge that something exists. We can then freely make the choice of how we wish to interact with that site. Taking the position that something should be not be shared, disseminated, or indexed, simply because of the bad behavior by that link, brings to mind the delisting of material from search engines that may be offensive to others. Put the articles and websites out there and let people choose for themselves.
- PretzelFisch 10y agoIf they want to restrict access they can put up a paywall, otherwise they serve HTML. HTML is our contract not how a browser renders it.