I'm surprised at the outraged expressed in this thread.
Everybody expects participants in this experiment to be divided into givers and takers, right? Why would anybody donate and then claim if they could just buy their own cup? The very nature of the thing is that both party's are anonymous, so the givers have no right or expectation to the "worthiness" of the taker or the purpose it is put to (on-selling included). However, it is clear that the hope and intention is to spread good will and kindness.
Originally, Jonathan provided a means to distribute these gifts to random strangers. The demographic was somewhat limited by technical and geographic constraints but Sam figured out a way to broaden (a small portion of) the benefits to a wider audience. To my mind that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the original experiment (i.e. spreading goodwill and kindness).
Also, it's worth noting that Sam did not explicitly moralize about this - other than to say that he didn't "find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very interesting".
Can anyone explain why it has provoked such an aggressive response?
EDIT: I've no connection with Jonathan or Sam or Starbucks (really).
Everybody expects participants in this experiment to be divided into givers and takers, right? Why would anybody donate and then claim if they could just buy their own cup? The very nature of the thing is that both party's are anonymous, so the givers have no right or expectation to the "worthiness" of the taker or the purpose it is put to (on-selling included). However, it is clear that the hope and intention is to spread good will and kindness.
Originally, Jonathan provided a means to distribute these gifts to random strangers. The demographic was somewhat limited by technical and geographic constraints but Sam figured out a way to broaden (a small portion of) the benefits to a wider audience. To my mind that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the original experiment (i.e. spreading goodwill and kindness).
Also, it's worth noting that Sam did not explicitly moralize about this - other than to say that he didn't "find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very interesting".
Can anyone explain why it has provoked such an aggressive response?
EDIT: I've no connection with Jonathan or Sam or Starbucks (really).