This person is earning a really competitive wage. She’s getting the power and independence to lead a materially good life. This will trump every other metaphysical concern you can have by watching these abusive videos.
Some one has to moderate these videos and it’s great that it’s someone poor who’s getting the opportunity.
I find this a bit surprising. Could there be something else affecting the accuracy of larger trials? Perhaps they are not as careful, or cutting corners somewhere?
Basically, the possibility that the small study was underpowered, and just lucky...then the large studies with more power are closer to the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular!
What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed by the same amount of people doing the same amount of jobs. That’s why standards of living have been rising for the past few millennia instead of everybody being out of work. We took work away from humans with technology, we then used that effort saved to get more done.
Anger at companies who hold power in multiple places to prevent and worsen this situation for people is valid anger.
The question is do we think that will actually happen?
Personally I would love if it did, then this post would have the last laugh (as would I), but I think companies realize this energy problem already. Just search for the headlines of big tech funding or otherwise supporting nuclear reactors, power grid upgrades, etc.
I could change to a simple cost+ model but don’t want to bother until I see if people like it.
Ideas for splitting the difference so more people can use it without breaking my bank appreciated