My criterion is: Does the comment show an understanding the benefits of contract-work relationships and potential downsides of AB5-style laws? If so, it's a sub

My criterion is: Does the comment show an understanding the benefits of contract-work relationships and potential downsides of AB5-style laws? If so, it's a substantive contribution, even if it condemns employers/promotes legislation. If not, the commenter is contributing nothing but how boldly they can speak against a perceived evil, and is rightly dismissed as mere virtue signaling. Is that an unfair criterion? (This is a special case of the Goldilocks heuristic, that you shouldn't trust someone saying that "X is too low" unless they have a model for when X would be too high.)