Re:In Defense of Starbucks Squatters
by mikeash on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @03:10PM
(#6883335)
Better, but still not quite there IMO.
The Facebook example involves third parties in the form of the people who get to see your previously private info. It's not just between you and Facebook.
Likewise, the RIAA example involves a third party in the form of YouTube.
Finally, the MS/EA/Sony example involves a third party in the form of the courts.
Ironically, I think your last two examples are a near-perfect fit for the people trying to argue about coffee shop squatters. They're taking what should be a private interaction between two private entities and attempting to butt in to control that interaction in a way that suits them, much like the hypothetical RIAA is trying to control your interaction with YouTube, or the hypothetical MS/EA/Sony is trying to control your interaction with the courts.
The Facebook example involves third parties in the form of the people who get to see your previously private info. It's not just between you and Facebook.
Likewise, the RIAA example involves a third party in the form of YouTube.
Finally, the MS/EA/Sony example involves a third party in the form of the courts.
Ironically, I think your last two examples are a near-perfect fit for the people trying to argue about coffee shop squatters. They're taking what should be a private interaction between two private entities and attempting to butt in to control that interaction in a way that suits them, much like the hypothetical RIAA is trying to control your interaction with YouTube, or the hypothetical MS/EA/Sony is trying to control your interaction with the courts.