[lwhi]

This isn't creating some brave new world - levelling the playing field for all .. if you believe that you're quite simply bonkers :)

The injustice isn't that some people are being paid less - it's that some people aren't being paid at all.

On top of this there's one person, or company, who is wholly benefiting from the situation, while another takes a cut of the proceeds.

Logically, the system works because some people are willing to work for free. It's rotten.

[hyperbovine]

This is what I was getting at in my original post: why do so many people feel the need to render a moral judgement on the behalf of others? If it's rotten, don't participate. Everyone using those sites does so of their own free will.

[rhizome]

For the same reason you've been replying in this thread: it concerns you. Similarly, if you don't like peoples' comments here, why refer to them or reply to them at all? Just ignore them. See how anti-social your line of logic is?

[hyperbovine]

Last post on this and I'm finished. Read the comments I was originally referring to. They are not of the "This threatens my way of life and my stream of income, and I'm concerned about it" variety. I would have no problem with that.

Rather, they uniformly denounce the whole practice as immoral and wrong. They disguise their own self-interest as a moral argument. Why? Because admitting that's its their own asses they are looking out for immediately begs the question, isn't that what all these spec designers are doing as well?

At which point the argument is shot, unless you happen to believe that by some preordained right certain people should be allowed to pursue happiness and wealth, while others should not. Now /that/ is anti-social.

[lwhi]

I don't think crowdsourcing is allowing many people to pursue happiness and wealth.

Well .. unless you include the company operating the service :)