The New York Times stepped into a contentious space this week with a published conversation that didn’t just explore shifting attitudes around theft—it amplified them in ways that are now drawing sharp reactions.
In the piece, culture editor Nadja Spiegelman framed the discussion around what she described as “microlooting,” a term used to capture a trend among some younger Americans who justify small-scale theft from large corporations. The interview featured commentator Hasan Piker and writer Jia Tolentino, both of whom spoke openly about their views on when, and whether, stealing can be morally acceptable.
Piker took the most expansive position, expressing support for piracy and even suggesting that more high-profile crimes could be seen as justified under certain conditions. Tolentino’s comments were narrower but still direct—she acknowledged using tools to bypass paywalls and described shoplifting from large retailers as not a significant moral violation, referencing her own experiences.
A bit later, Piker adds “I’m pro stealing from big corporations, because, you know, they steal quite a bit more from their own workers. However, one thing that might even help your ethical dilemma is the fact that the automated process that they design, these companies know will… pic.twitter.com/fB7U8Y6HN7
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 22, 2026
The underlying argument from both centered on imbalance. They pointed to corporate profits, wage disparities, and what they described as systemic exploitation as justification for targeting large companies rather than individuals. Spiegelman added context by citing long-term changes in CEO-to-worker pay ratios, a statistic often used in debates about income inequality.
Still, the conversation did not ignore potential consequences. Spiegelman raised the question of whether normalized theft would simply lead to higher prices or stricter enforcement, but that concern was largely dismissed within the discussion.
Piker, in particular, brushed past it and shifted toward a broader endorsement of disruptive economic change, including praise for policies associated with New York City leadership.
What makes the piece notable is less the existence of these viewpoints—they’ve circulated online for years—and more the platform. By hosting the conversation in a major publication, the discussion moves from fringe corners of the internet into a more visible and scrutinized arena.
The response has followed predictable lines. Critics argue the framing risks normalizing illegal behavior and sidesteps its real-world impact, including costs passed on to consumers or workers. Supporters, on the other hand, see it as an honest reflection of frustration with economic systems they view as unfair.
