In Defense of Starbucks Squatters
anewdomain.net
anewdomain.net
The argument against campers: "Starbucks and other coffee-shop campers just buy one cheap coffee and then take up a table for hours. We drive up the cost of coffee and inconvenience everybody else. We play loud videos and run our power cords across the floor, creating a safety hazard."
His argument for campers (in my own words): I'm an intellectual/creative person; I need to work in a coffee shop because research has shown it to increase creativity and output; I need to resist the brainwashed masses and their preconceived notions of acceptable coffee shop behavior.
Notice a theme? It's all about him, whereas the argument against campers is about everyone else. He even complains about being expected to clean up after himself (bus his own table). Shouldn't people be expected to act responsibly and clean up after themselves in a public place?
He does attempt to give an economic argument (i.e. coffee shops make more money from campers versus if they were to be banned). However, this is pure speculation on his part, and I suspect he is simply stating what he wants to believe is the truth. For example:
"I'm quite certain that if camping were banned at that store, the place would be deserted and it would make far less money. In fact, there would be no reason at all to even stay open until midnight. A huge percentage of its revenue comes from student squatters."
He has no way of knowing this, offers no supporting evidence beyond speculation, and simply states it as fact because it supports his view.
I would add that I work very often from coffee shops (and restaurants). In my mind being a good camper is: - Get to know your server/waitron's name's and interests - Become a good "regular". To me that includes not being rude or impatient. Let the non-regulars go first. If things are getting too busy I'll move to a smaller table or even leave. Yes you're a customer, but you're also supporting the staff. - Buy a meal if you're there for long enough that you would need to eat. If I'm spending the day I'll get breakfast at home, coffees at the coffee shop, order lunch, more drinks and head home before the dinner rush. - Tip well. This covers a multitude of sins.
Ultimately, let respect for others guide your choices.
Try applying your attitude to other issues. "How much of your data the NSA collects is a matter between you and the NSA; public discussion is unnecessary."
Your comparison to the NSA is wrong because that is a government agency, and our government is supposedly of, by, and for the people, thus whatever they do is a matter for all of us.
A table at a coffee shop is not. If the coffee shop wants to let me stay, then I can stay. If they want me to leave, then I must go. And that is all that needs to be said, as far as I can tell.
"If the RIAA wants to DMCA your YouTube video because there was a copyrighted song playing on a radio in the background, that's between you and the RIAA."
"If Microsoft/EA/Sony/everyone else wants to modify their terms of service to prevent you from suing them for any reason, and require you to agree to those terms to continue using goods and services you've already paid for, that's between you and <insert major tech company here>."
Vigorous public debate on corporate policy is clearly in the public interest, whether the issue is big or small. What's so difficult to understand about that?
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.
[2] If you DO participate in such discussions, simply to say that you don't care what other people think, ehh... then you're kind of a jerk. Return to Step 1.
Starbucks has the wrong ambience for squatting, probably partially by design. Go independent, seriously.