I've read the article and find the title quite apt, as a sweatshop is:

> a factory or workshop...where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions.

They refer to their process as a 'factory model', and if those aren't poor conditions then why is their attrition rate so high?

I think it's better to follow guidelines and use the correct title, too, but I disagree that it is very judgmental. They fire US based staff after an acquisition, have 69% annual attrition, use spyware on their international contractors, and use accounting (NOL carry forwards) and patent trolling tactics to increase returns... at least allegedly per the article. Most people here would not want to work at a place like this. It sounds like it checks a lot of boxes for a sweatshop.

Agreed. @dang can we change the title? The words "billionaire" "sweatshop" or "empire" never appear in the article, let alone the title.

Reasonable people can disagree about this approach to building and running software companies. The article does a good job describing how a sort of a CA for the SMB market functions. It's an interesting and informative read, regardless of how you feel about it

I agree that the article is good and useful, but the title is too much.

Flagged it until title is changed.