[premchai21]

Actually, it's not. As far from the commons as one can get might be more like a heavily shielded, localized room in a remote area with no sound, light, or other effects going in or out except for some set of operators.

What is the sight one sees upon traveling through an area? A composite of many things, but including a large amount of the public faces of shops if there are any. Yet surely that sight has a considerable impact on the common areas.

[ars]

You have an incredibly broad view of what "public commons" means.

I suppose you would also support legislation to regulate what color clothing people can wear if they go out in public?

Should shop keepers be required to have window shades on their stores so you are not offended by the display of merchandise?

[premchai21]

Let me clarify: I didn't mean to say “this is directly part of the commons”. My main objection was to the idea that it was unambiguously not part of the commons (“as far from … as you can get”). I think that is incorrect because it is ambiguous: the physical world enforces more interference than you seem to imply.

I currently live in an area in which my window coverings are regulated to show an off-white color on the outside when closed, for what little that's worth. And almost all jurisdictions have some regulation on public clothing: public nudity is often punishable, for instance, thus excluding clothing with the color “invisibly transparent”. I neither directly support nor directly reject such laws, at the moment.

My best approximation of a “correct” solution might have involved upgrading everyone's perceptual filtering capability enough to obviate most commons regulations, but I've recently gone through a (possibly fake—I haven't stabilized the prionic meme filter yet) realization that humans are not at all what they seemed to me to be earlier on, and the inference propagation has not converged, so that shouldn't be treated as a stable opinion.