I found the answer disappointing because the argument has a huge hole in it: it discounts the atmosphere. The article says the farthest objects earth-based nake

I found the answer disappointing because the argument has a huge hole in it: it discounts the atmosphere. The article says the farthest objects earth-based naked-eye observations can detect are ~70 million light years away, so if you're in space in the middle of a billion light year void, you won't see anything. But if the atmosphere has just one order of magnitude attenuation (or rather you could see 10 times further without it), then maybe you could see to the 500 million light year edge of your void bubble. That's what bothers me about these pseudo-scientific columns: they aren't rigorous and the reader doesn't know it. In this particular case, the author even changed the reader's question, and then didn't even give a satisfactory answer, just wanted to write about "cool" things.