Of course, but we're not talking about people in poverty, or that are homeless, etc. You're just bringing up a weird red herring that's orthogonal to my point--namely, that the bar is extremely accessible (esp. compared to ventures prior to the advent of computers).

If your day job doesn’t pay enough to make rent, you should move to another city.

This does not sound believable. Even assuming a 2 h / day commute each way, this person is working 56 h weeks with 28 h of commute? Introduce me to this poor person doing this (if they're within 50 mi of 94103) and if they have 2800 h of wages to show for last year, I will pay $1k just to talk to them for 2 h in a place of their convenience at a time of their convenience.

I think it's much more likely that people who are too poor to participate cannot participate in gainful labour in a predictable fashion, i.e. their employment is sporadic, or shifts are unpredictable, or they are seasonal labour. i.e. they are not time-constrained, they are employment-constrained.

Not sure what this has to do with anything; my point was just that the bar is much more accessible, generally speaking, than it was prior to software being a thing. It wasn't some grand thesis about the affordability of internet or larger social problems (housing, poverty, etc.).

Seems like you're just trying to grandstand.

> 18% of households in the US say they can't afford home internet service

very hardly believable, unless they are chronically unemployed.