Ancestry was given that monopoly by their users. Served up to them on a silver platter. Without Ancestry, some other business would have come along as long as the users are so willing to put their work behind a paywall. The core fault lies with the users who are willing to do such.
How in the world is being the victim of a crime against your will similar to choosing to buy and use a pay-walled product? Especially for a service that isn't fulfilling some need?
I don't agree with your characterization of the HN ethos. I would suggest the ethos is a little closer to users lack collectivization, and we're talking about how a service provider has taken advantage of that. It's a social question, not a legal one.
In the case of ancestry it is not just their users, but also the users extended family. One of my relatives found it necessary to put me in there and I've had a really hard time to get them to delete me.
I asked a question; I never made any claim that could even be a strawman.
(If we are going to go by exactly what we said and not the implications of the words we used, though hopefully we can agree that would actually be dishonest.)
