[SpaghettiCat]

> Satisfying someone's needs doesn't justify anything. Not all needs are meant to be satisfied - especially if they conflict with the needs of others, whether directly or by generating externalities.

What cases are you talking about? If a consumer pays for something, they want it. What is the evil of supplying a consumer with what they want? If they don't want it they don't have to buy it. If they don't like it they don't have to use it. Ultimately, the decision is up to the consumer for what is the for them.

[TeMPOraL]

First of all, the consumer and the supplier do not form a closed system (regardless of what some ideologies would want one to believe). You have to account for the effects supplying a customer with something has on the third parties. Those are the externalities I've mentioned, and even Wikipedia has a lot of examples.

Secondly, you have to take a look at the aggregate effects. So for instance I may need a new, shittier way to spam web with ads, and there's a company who'll happily satisfy my needs. By having this transaction, I start earning more, and now my competitors see the strategy and all decide to adopt it. The end result is that web is more spammed, my advantage disappers, and the new solution probably costs more than the old one, but now no one can go back. A classic coordination problem[0].

Finally, as 'lostlogin points out downthread, what you want doesn't always equal to what you need.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/, a day does not go by without me linking to it...

[ashark]

I like that page, and also the Non-Libertarian FAQ[1] linked on it, which saves me summing up my feelings on the topic.

I'd still love a good dissenting take on it. The one linked near the bottom is awful.

[1] http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html

[EDIT] Now includes the link!

[SpaghettiCat]

> The end result is that web is more spammed, my advantage disappers, and the new solution probably costs more than the old one, but now no one can go back.

These are not the only players in the game like you believe. Those who advertise more effectively on the web have more of an advantage over those who advertise via other media and those who don't advertise at all. And, as ads are more spammy and in-your-face, the advertised products get bought more whether all competitors are spamming or only some. Advertised products are bought more than they would be if the ads were mild or there were no ads at all.

PS: Thanks for the blog link it looks very interesting, I'll read it later.

[escherize]

And in doing so, you create a larger market for anti newer-shittier-spam ads, with the potential to erase ads for anyone who cares enough.

[TeMPOraL]

Which is strictly worse than not creating that market at all. It's just resources going to waste over the pointless zero-sum games, and that's exactly another reason where "satisfying user needs" doesn't cut it as a justification.

[woah]

So, are you going to determine for us what people are allowed to put on their websites?

[eevilspock]

I admire your perseverance T. The doctrine that the free market leads to truth is difficult to dispel.

[pjc50]

Software and hardware are sufficiently complex that the user has only the vaguest idea of what they actually bought. They cannot possibly make a fully informed decision and have to go on partial information.

I don't think it's sensible to say that customers "wanted" VW cars with "defeat devices". In that case, it's not even clear how much of the vendor company knew what was in the product.

[SpaghettiCat]

Clearly VW engaged in deception of the customer as they cheated their test results. Customers are protected from such deception by the law.

My point was to criticise the "Internet Dream" utopian fairy tale advocated by commenter TEMPORAL--where a user gets everything but pays nothing--and to explain that the internet's commercialisation is perfectly OK.

[pjc50]

I think there's a legitimate question to ask about how some kinds of commercialisation (selling privacy; expensive in-app purchases bought by children or compulsive gamblers; etc) are in some way deceptive or dishonest. It's certainly not as simple as a direct upfront payment for goods or services.

[JupiterMoon]

What if they want something illegal/immoral/harmful to others?

[SpaghettiCat]

That's where the government intervenes by legislating, thereby society is protecting individuals from themselves (and from harming others).

I don't see how there is a need to do this with the internet in the way the "Internet Dream" describes it.