My argument assumes that the process of choosing from among various scarce means in the achievement of some subjectively preferred end is itself a rational process regardless of the skill of an individual in assessing the likelihood that the chosen means actually WILL achieve said ends. I'm not sure what judging someone would even mean; I'm only using logic to determine their actual values and demonstrated preferences. Action is an expression of preference even under the influence of compulsion.

It's not a case study. It's a hypothetical situation. What information does your doubt rely upon? If they had a more valuable use for that five dollars, like buying something or saving it, why didn't they put it toward that use?

Doesn't the suggestion that people can't resist marketing assume lack of free will and moral agency? How does the fact that their decision was influenced by external factors change the fact that they made a decision?

I'm sure one or two socialists will pop up in the comments of this article to contest the idea that internet connected devices are means of production provided the environment here isn't too vitriolic. I don't know how comfortable I'd feel commenting knowing I was going to be called stupid if I were in their position.