> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!" > in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work > There is nothing wrong with this um in what universe

> You pitch "The best automated way to do X!" > in actuality you have a horde of people doing the work > There is nothing wrong with this um in what universe does "technically legal in the US of A" equate to "nothing wrong with" ? using legality as a shortcut for a moral compass is putting the cart before the horse at best, but very often argued out of laziness or pure self-interest at worst. it's a narrative that causes people to stop introspection and think about what is actually right or wrong, instead going for the much, much easier choice of what is legal and what is not. not easier because the legal system is simpler than ethics (it usually isn't), but easier because the choice is made for them. and as your post demonstrates, once the choice is made, it's easy enough to conflate legality, lawfulness and judgement with morality, rightfulness and justice. but once you poke at that distinction, the argument just falls apart. there isn't "nothing wrong with this". all you're really saying is that it's probably not illegal.