> "You shouldn't accept my gift without reciprocating."

That example was set up specifically to not be a gifting. If someone sets terms before giving you something it's not a gift, it's clearly transactional. In my mind, the newspaper is being given by someone at a stand, it's being "sold", but not for money.

It was set up this way specifically to show one particular way of thinking about it, not to imply that is the only way it can be seen, which is what I was getting at when I said "Where I think most people differ on this subject is how accurate that analogy is for consuming internet content." Some people believe it's a clear transaction, others seem (I assume, not being of this group) to believe it's not.

> "Your arguments are uncivil, you should make different arguments."

I can see why you think that, and it's due to a poor word choice on my part. What I was thinking when I wrote "anti-social" is "anti-societal". That is, anti-social but not in the colloquial sense. Specifically, since I think the exchange is transactional, ignoring my own part of the transaction on purpose is selfish in the singular, and society breaking when accepted by the masses. Almost nobody does this (that's sociopathy), but I think people have convinced themselves that it doesn't apply in this case (i.e. it's not a transaction, which is the root of my cognitive dissonance assertion in my original comment). This is nothing special, people behave in anti-social (anti-societal) ways all the time (lane hopping on the freeway, cutting in line, etc). It happens when we convince ourselves that the negative consequences, or the chance of them occurring, are small, but our need is great. The individual effects of this as small, but in aggregate it would be unsustainable.

But this is all couched in why I can't subscribe to that view, not why I think someone else should be ashamed, or feel guilty. If you don't think it's transactional, there's nothing to feel guilty about, as you aren't doing anything wrong in your own eyes. I happen to think people of that view are wrong, but I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of.

> "You should not treat your property like it's yours alone."

That's the point in question. If you believe the relationship is transactional, it's not fully your property until you've fulfilled your side of the bargain. I've been trying to show both sides of the argument, but you seem stuck on ignoring mine; It's not about controlling your property, it's about whether the transaction that makes it your property has even been fulfilled. If there were money involved (I sell you a paper for $1, but hand it to you before collecting the dollar. You walk away without paying), I doubt there would even be anything to discuss. The question is whether, and how, it's different if I expect something besides money from you. This is ambiguous in most cases, but when a site has a banner that explicitly outlines their views on ad-blockers, it's much less so.

> "Your behavior is bad, you shouldn't behave like that."

Should be viewed in light of my "anti-societal" meaning above. In my examples I use a person-to-person situation because I think people are much less likely to think certain behavior is acceptable then. If it's not acceptable then, why is it acceptable when you are anonymous, or the other side is not a person? That is, anonymity does seem to encourage some bad behavior because of lack of accountability, so is some of what we're seeing he attributable to that, or is it entirely separate?

> I hope this helps, and I understand that I may have misread you, it's just my reaction / perspective.

It does, and I hope what I was trying to express, is a bit more clear. That is, explicitly, "there is a disconnect between the sides of the argument, this is what I think it is, and here's my reason for choosing my side in light of that information".