A lot of journalists and media distribution industry figures have published comments on an Internet-based "entitlement mentality", which (they say) perceives media content as free and all-you-can-eat. 

I disagree with the assertion that the Internet entitlement mentality is focused upon content (news posts, videos, radio, etc.), as such an assertion has led to the ongoing legal/political conflict over peer-to-peer file-sharing.

Instead, I feel that the IEM is focused more upon memberships or subscriptions to various services, especially those with a social networking aspect.

Probably the most recent case-in-point for the demonstration of service-centric IEM is the reaction to the 2008-2009 rumor concerning the possibility of Facebook adopting a tiered or all-member-paid subscription model. Looking at various blog posts from that period, it seemed like so many people (many of whom may also have been divided over, say, the debate on the public option in health care reform that was being discussed at the time) were entirely disgusted with the very idea that Facebook would adopt a paid membership model that they would leave the site in droves, all due to "the economy".

What irks me about this reaction is that Facebook is a service which is very often described as a constant seeker of investments from third parties (such as angel investor firms), as the site turns too little of a profit from the ads which are posted on all pages throughout the site. Just like how YouTube attracts so many users with so small of a sense of civility in their comments, Facebook was also plagued with a similar influx of thin-skinned individuals when it opened membership to non-collegiate members a long while back.

So when the mere rumor of a paid membership (not the same as a paywall) becomes publicized in various corners, the same lack of civility of many of its users was also published in reaction. 

And what if Facebook did ever decide to move the site to a paid-membership or tiered-membership model of subscription-based revenue? Would it thin the herd down to those who have the ability to pay for their use of the site or their level of membership (and accompanying beef-up of features)? Would it make the site (and the accompanying company) much more responsible and responsive to their paying users? Would it raise the level of discourse among users?

My opinion is that such a model would accomplish all such phenomena, and would also make the company less beholden to the wishes and demands of third party companies who post their advertisements on the site.

I look at Metafilter and Something Awful as examples of how paid membership (not paywalling the views of the site) helps the site with the level of discourse and responsibility (and literacy, no doubt), and how thriving connections have been formed by and between the members of such sites; finally, recognizing and awarding paying members with privileges may also encourage other members to also pay their memberships. No doubt that such would also happen for Facebook, Ning and other sites of the social networking genre.

So in conclusion, I say that online-based services, not Internet-distributed content, are more deserving of evaluations of the level of "Internet entitlement mentality" among their users.