Talking about the Pot calling the Kettle black!
I think this is accurate here. The new yorker is opening their own slave factory is this example, not buying products from said factory. Or manufacturing cars without seatbelts or being an oppressive Lord. All while denouncing those who do the same. That may have a positive effect, even a net positive effect, but "the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves" because they are doing the same thing, just being aware of it. If the new yorker was a zero profit company then your point would be valid but they are instead a subsidiary of a Condé Nast which is owned by one of the richest people in the world. It's more like the Washington post (owned by bezos) writing an article about amazon's absuse of workers while also abusing their own workers.
When I tried to go back to the article, I was greeted with this message:
>You’ve run out.
>We hope you enjoyed your free article.
>Subscribe for $29.99 $6, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime.
These dark patterns are not necessary to run a website. They are strictly profit seaking acts meant to charge you at every turn, exactlty as in the story.
So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black
That's a false dichotomy (and the street drug dealer comparison is hyperbole).
Advocating for leftist ideas like a floor on the standard of living and ensuring equal opportunity doesn't contradict pursuing a smart, aggressive, and legal business strategy, except in the mind of a libertarian absolutist.
You didn't seem to read the comments clearly.
I defended the right to charge for an article while also satirizing libertarianism (making no comment about the quality of the article), because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
Sure, but it doesn't really change my point, or my comment.
> because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
Your whole condescension here is completely unwarranted. I am well aware that there are a variety of economic systems historically and now.
Look, is it juvenile to accuse lefty/progressive publications of hypocrisy for trying to make money? Sure. And if this was all about some thoughtful criticism of capitalism then the juvenile nature of such a remark would be out of place.
But the original article was likewise completely juvenile and to be frank doesn't even really make sense. It paints a contradictory picture of Libertarianism without concerning itself with whether those contradictions exist in reality or merely in author's own understanding.
I could have responding to the OP with the same sort or "well actually..." type of response as you just did, but it would be like casting pearls before swine. The OP is not a serious intellectual work, and isn't even really that great artistically. It's just an Internet shitpost with fancy letterhead.
shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d
wat