Yes, my original comment was a bit brash, agreed. And I do think its a good thing that this sort of is discussed, because the idea expressed is a patently wrong yet extremely popular viewpoint on this platform and the only way to address that is discussion.
But, unfortunately, I think there are two major concepts that are also at play here, that cause me to disagree with your position, or perhaps should be better elaborated in order to explain mine.
The main two components of swaying public opinion during a public debate are:
First, who actually presents the more logical argument.
The second is that both viewpoints are given stature and respectability by the mere fact that both viewpoints are included in the debate and by the fact that the community has chosen to engage and listen to the debate. The fact that both the members of the debate and the audience itself are willing to listen to both sides of the discussion and take them both seriously is oftentimes the more major persuasive social force at play. This is because it means that audience members who perhaps do not pay as as much attention to the actual merits within the debate itself, will quickly deduce that by virtue of the fact that the debate is taken seriously, both viewpoints must therefore be serious and well respected. Additionally, the fact that both viewpoints are being debated at all implies that both viewpoints must be relatively similar in liklihood of accuracy and therefore it is reasonable to believe either side of the debate. After all we no longer hold debates on whether or not gravity exists, we only hold debates on things where either side could, potentially, be true.
This second point is why the concept of the Overton window exists. This second point is why you cannot correct neo-nazism by discussing neo-nazi ideas in a public forum, and the mere act of giving neo-nazism a public forum at all is a win for the neo-nazi, even if you then win the debate (in short: neo-nazism is such a rightfully hated ideology, that merely giving it the respect of a debate is a step up for the ideology, even if they then lose the debate). Etc
This leaves us with a question. Which is more important? Which concept is more responsible for persuading audience members? The first concept or the second? Surely, different discussions in different social situations would lean more heavily towards one or the other being more important.
I think if you and I were to a host public, yet small debate in front of a class of aspiring logicians at Oxford University, the merits of the logical argument would be more important than the setting itself. I would be willing to bet that such an audience, in such a not-very-high-profile setting would be more moved by logical argument than the social stature of the event. Conversely, I would posit that the reason Fox News invites liberals on their platform regularly, and then does not give them an adequate chance to prevent their viewpoints, is because it allows the network to put them against actually indefensible and unpopular extremely right wing viewpoints, and leave the uneducated audience, who did not receive a good explanation of either viewpoint, to leave the segment assuming that both viewpoints must be equally well respected and potentially correct.
The original post I responded to is factually incorrect. Their viewpoint boils down to the idea that a labor arrangement cannot be exploitative if that labor arrangement was entered into willingly by both parties, with no nuance for what constitutes "willingly" in our economic system. That is a patently false idea, and is only tangentially related to the situation of gig workers to which the author attempts to relate it.
So the question becomes, if I give a genuine rebuttal of that memetic idea, which would be more important? Would the Hacker News crowd be moved more by well reasoned argument that goes many paragraphs deep, involving historical examples and moral assessment? Or would the majority of internet readers skip over the debate after the first few sentences or posts, and assume that by virtue of the fact that the original post is the highest voted comment on the page, that it must be a reasonable viewpoint?
Considering the fact that at the time I posted, there were numerous attempts at logical refutation, all of which were ignored. And considering the fact that the vast majority of the responses I have received so grotesquely misunderstand my post as to think that I am calling gig workers slaves, as opposed to pointing out the logical fallacies of the post. I have to think that no, the second effect here is more potent to this particular online crowd than the first.
In that scenario, nuanced reasoned rebuttal of an extreme viewpoint is not reasonable. To give respect to an unrespectable viewpoint is not a virtue if your audience lacks the intellectual depth or curiosity to critically engage with the debate.
In that scenario, the best thing you can do is to put a large warning label on the unreasonable viewpoint that says: "Beware all audience members: the above viewpoint is not considered reasonable or moral by all members of this community." That is how you address the second social concept at play here.
People who then, afterward, want to discuss in deeper logic thereafter, are free to do so.
And that's why my response was intentionally brash, and why engaging with such an unrespectable and indefensible viewpoint, in public, at the top of the post, is an irresponsible thing to do, until it has been established first to a passive audience that this is not an equal debate between respected opinions. And even then, that is often not sufficient, but it is at least something I could do here.