From that perspective the quote above is a lie: workers receive service in exchange for data they generate. It is in his own Google Maps example.
What if everyone gave their data to Open Street Map instead?
But sure, there's a point about users that generate the value in these tech platforms do also get value from the services. Whether the value is worth the cost is another matter. What's clear is that users don't have much say in the arrangement. The corporations have the organized power, the users are divided and disorganized. There's no users' union.
Any Google Maps user can switch to Open Street Map on a whim unlike feudalism peasants. Arguably, the current best economic theory basically says that because exchange takes place assuming users are rational enough, the exchanged value is identical.
One would need a stronger argument than calling it "work for free" here, when it is obviously not free.
> Arguably, the current best economic theory basically says that because exchange takes place assuming users are rational enough, the exchanged value is identical.
I'll take that argument. If that's the best economic theory, it just validates my assertion that the field of economics is mostly a farce.
That "theory" is nothing but a say-so assertion that doesn't even try to look for evidence. It's unfalsifiable BS.
Some platforms provide great value. But the world is full of cases of middle-men and gatekeepers that have worked their way into that position and are little more than extractive. They might as well not exist. The reason people choose to go through them is for the value they get from the end exchange, not because they prefer to go through the middle-man. It all depends on the particular cases. The phenomenon of rent-seeking middle-men is not some myth.
