[TeMPOraL]

They're different because in the scarf example, you're expressing the expectation before giving the scarf. In the web example, the expectation is applied retroactively. It's as if you gave me the scarf, no strings attached, and later said "oh, since I gave you that scarf, I also want you to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me".

On the web, we have a way to handle the exact equivalent to your scenario. We do that by ensuring the user agrees to go to the store before handing them over a scarf. For instance, on the protocol level, you could reject all GET requests that do not have attached the proof of acceptance of the cough medicine quest. The rejection message (e.g. 403 Forbidden) would contain a machine-interpretable requirement of the quest. That synergizes well with the legal level - faking proof of quest acceptance would (AFAIK) constitute unauthorized access to scarf under CFAA. At the same time, the valid proof could match the legal definition of informed consent. It also meshes well with the social level, as whoever reads the 403 response (e.g. in their browser) would see the need to consent to the quest in order to get the scarf. Consenting to the quest, taking the scarf, and then not doing the quest would rightfully classify me as a thief and an asshole.

[darawk]

> They're different because in the scarf example, you're expressing the expectation before giving the scarf. In the web example, the expectation is applied retroactively. It's as if you gave me the scarf, no strings attached, and later said "oh, since I gave you that scarf, I also want you to go to the store and pick up some cough medicine for me".

I'm glad we've come to agreement, then :). I agree, if the expectations are unstated, there is no agreement, and nobody is bound by unstated expectations.

If the website makes you agree to not use an ad blocker, you agree, and then still do it, that's stealing. If you do not undergo this interrogative exchange, then it's not stealing.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, that I agree with.

EDIT: maybe not 100% agree, because I'm not confident that "stealing" is the right word. The concept of theft carries extra connotations and constraints with it, and I'm too tired today to go into exploring this. But I definitely agree that if you consented to a contract and then proceeded to break it, then you're both morally in the wrong, and liable for any consequences that can be legally enforced.

Also, out of curiosity, looking at all your comments in this thread - is all this discussion a one big exercise at applying stuff from Scott Alexander's "Varieties of Argumentative Experience"? ;).

[darawk]

> Also, out of curiosity, looking at all your comments in this thread - is all this discussion a one big exercise at applying stuff from Scott Alexander's "Varieties of Argumentative Experience"? ;).

Haha, well, I did say this in the discord channel I share with some friends about an hour ago:

> whew boys, i'm arguing on like 87 fronts on hn simultaneously

> rly stirred up a hornets nest

> told them using ad blockers was stealing

> not even sure if i believe it, but makes for a good tussle

And I am also a pretty religious reader of slate star codex :).

[TeMPOraL]

Hah :).

> And I am also a pretty religious reader of slate star codex :).

So am I!

> > not even sure if i believe it, but makes for a good tussle

So are you now more, or less sure if you believe it?

[darawk]

> So are you now more, or less sure if you believe it?

Haha well....I'm not sure i'm any closer to an answer, other than of course that the label 'theft' is slippery and labeling something "theft" or "not theft" is kind of meaningless [0] (except insofar as the whole prison thing is concerned - it's kind of meaningful there). It is theft in the sense that something has been taken from someone under conditions other than those they specified. It is not theft in the sense that maybe they didn't really specify it clearly, or maybe society has decided to limit the media within which such terms may be specified? But why did we decide to do that? It all seems a little arbitrary, and really kind of boils down to the way certain mediums make people "feel". People (myself included) "feel" like digitally copying something is not the same as taking a physical object. Partly maybe because digital goods are non-rivalrous? I'm not sure.

There is actually a physical world example of this exact sort of thing: time share presentations. They often will give you some reward like a trip for sitting through their presentation. The dynamics are a little different, because you can't get the reward without sitting through the presentation. But what's really going on there? Is it the physical gating mechanism that gives it moral force? If they said "On the honor system, don't take any free meal coupons unless you watch the whole presentation", does that change the moral dynamics of the situation? I think the answer is probably no, but i'll tell you that it makes me personally a whole lot more likely to skip the presentation :p.

[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-mad...

[shkkmo]

> of course that the label 'theft' is slippery and labeling something "theft" or "not theft" is kind of meaningless [0] (except insofar as the whole prison thing is concerned - it's kind of meaningful there). It is theft in the sense that something has been taken from someone under conditions other than those they specified.

The label "theft" is not like the label "feesh". Words carry weight beyond the category to which the refer.

If I say "You're an asshole! (btw, by 'asshole' I mean anyone who enjoys arguing on the internet)".

That is not the same as saying "You're a genius! (btw, by 'genius' I mean anyone who enjoys arguing on the internet)".

When you choose to use an morally (and legally) loaded term, you are doing more than just opening up a pointless semantics debate, you are striving for an emotional impact.

Why would you choose to use such a loaded term as "stealing", rather than the more clear and accurate term "breaking contract" when that much more clearly describes what you mean?