True, and I should elaborate on how this impacts the problem. I think that, given the way I've phrased the common thread, this distinction does not remove the Newcomb-like aspect of the problem.

What I mean is: if you would base your decision on the fact that Other People will suffer the consequences, then you already exist in a "branch" which is (statistically) more plagued by defection of this type than if the cluster of mindspace that includes you did not completely neglect the importance of other people.

In this way, the distinction is like the transparent-box variant of Newcomb's problem. You are (arguably) better off in general if you do not update on the contents of Box #2. Or like Absent-Minded Driver in that you are better off in general if you don't always exit, even though "other yous" will get the benefit of exiting at the right place.