When bots invariably redirect captcha chat messages to a call center in (x) country to solve for 1̶0̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ (thanks flotzam) 0.2 cents, what's the next step in this cat and mouse game?
Once they had a regular stream of people solving captchas, they started selling the ability to insert the captcha you need solved in the visitor stream.
It works especially well here because there's no easy way for multiple bad actors to collude and generate a false consensus.
0.2 cents on Anti Captcha, 0.179 cents on DeathByCaptcha
Not sure if the people living for <2.15$/day have access to sufficient network bandwidth or computers/smartphones. Some may not have access to power.
The anti captcha platforms are working exactly the same as the captcha platforms, they just send captcha through users and then acts as a middleman to get a cut.
People are so used to solve captcha now that you can get them to solve captcha for getting access to anything.
From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploita...
exploitation noun [U] (UNFAIR TREATMENT)
the act of using someone or something unfairly for your own advantage:
exploitation of Marx wrote about the exploitation of the workers.
We want to put a stop to the exploitation of children by adults.
The exploitation of fear is an effective means of manipulation.
These people are the victims of reality TV exploitation.
The only “human check” that works is asking the person to periodically appear and check in at some real life events with other humans.
And even that will only last long enough until lifelike robots will be able to simulate humans better than many humans.
I struggle to see how providing opportunity to the poorest people in the world is bad and I'd go so far as to say a worldview that finds this behavior bad is harmful to the people who need help the most.
If you want to enable the most vulnerable people in the world to live better lives you do so by providing better opportunity, not by taking away the only opportunity they have.
e.g. if a child is working at a sweatshop so the family doesn't starve, you help the child by providing the family with food so there's no need for the child to voluntarily work at the sweatshop. You most certainly don't take away the sweatshop and watch the family starve.
Doesn't history show this is precisely the solution people choose? It makes themselves feel like they have done good, and as for the increased harm (kids working even worse 'jobs' than a sweatshop), well that isn't their fault so they don't need to feel bad, assuming they even find out about the negative effects of their decision?
because "they" (assuming you mean the opportunity provider) have done good. It's not an optimal good or even a baseline for what is considered a good lifestyle, but it gives a family a better option. Sweatshop work isn't a great option, but I would say it's objectively a better option than starving to death.
Just because something doesn't meet the baseline definition for a good lifestyle doesn't mean it's not an improvement upon the reality they live in (and thus good).
> and as for the increased harm
I think I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting a kid working in the worst sweatshop is being harmed more than if they were to starve to death? Even if you find this to be true, it's self-evident the families sending their children to work in that sweatshop believe the sweatshop is an improvement on their life.
I'd hire thugs to keep the workers working for even lower pay to further increase my profits.
That is still objectively better than starving to death and as such is still a net good for the poor family.
Again, the answer to helping these people is to give them better opportunities. It should never even be a consideration for a good person to think about removing the voluntary sweatshop. A good person should think only about providing better opportunities such that the family can choose to not work at the sweatshop.
If you think only about whether the sweatshop should be a decision for the family, then you're effectively saying you know better than the family about how to take care of them by limiting their choices. I trust self-interest of survival to make more meaningful decisions than benevolent parties completely disconnected from the outcomes using only their good intentions to make changes.
This is a false dichotomy, of course, as is much of the rest of your frankly ridiculous argument. Even your definition of a third world sweatshop as "voluntary" leaves them only the alternative choice of starving to death - that does not seem very voluntary, per your own definition.
I think you read that backwards. The "they" meant the people shutting down the sweatshops. That's why I say "feel they have done good" and not "did good".
>are you suggesting a kid working in the worst sweatshop is being harmed more than if they were to starve to death?
No, the opposite. Once the sweatshop shuts down, the kid is forced into an even dire situation (starvation possibly, though more likely working an even worse/more deadly job than sweatshop work).
I think there were studies done on child labor being banned at sweat shops in some SEA country and the results were pretty negative as children ended up worse off, but I do not have the link on hand.
You are stealing their time, paying them scraps insufficient for them to purchase anything developmentally significant abroad.
This is of no benefit to them. It's roughly equivalent of telling them to do nothing and paying them just enough that it's not worth doing anything else. It's a way of keeping them poor by not letting them explore opportunities for development.
It's like paying the employee so low that they have to keep working for you because they can't afford the risk associated with attempting to switch jobs and long hours rob them of opportunities and motivation.
Yes, they do. South Korea is a prime examples of this, e.g. Seoul peace market where the people got enough income to start focusing on unionizing. That market went from sweatshops to an internationally recognized quality market in just a few decades.
Did the sweatshops suck? Of course they did, but the income took a people from trying to survive to realizing their worth and demanding better conditions while catapulting their economy into one of the most modern countries in the world in a matter of a few decades.
The exploitation is baked into policy. Paying people near slave-wages is merely using the exploitative policy as it was designed.
If they wished to not work at the sweatshop - they would stop working at the sweatshop. Whose opinion is more relevant here?
If you think their lives would be better not working at the sweatshop, you should educate and empower the sweatshop workers. Removing the choice of the already disadvantaged is evil.
Since when do people complaining about sweatshop labor not want to empower sweatshop workers? Why else would they complain in your estimation?