Was the article actually plagiarized? Yes, the two articles look at the same topic, the economics of the "creator economy". However, they seem to have different

Was the article actually plagiarized? Yes, the two articles look at the same topic, the economics of the "creator economy". However, they seem to have different points of emphasis. The alleged original [1] focuses on the effects of the hollowing out of the creator economy on firms that provide services for those creators. The key quote that stood out to me was: "Trying to siphon off 5% fees from an industry where even the top 1% are only mere multi-millionaires was never going to work," said one top 1% content creator. "How are you going to reach a billion? Your addressable market itself is not a billion-dollar industry." Whereas the other article, the one that is alleged to be the copy [2], is a far more generic-sounding one which expresses pessimism about the prospects of a "creator economy" to address growing economic inequality. The key quote there is: The creator economy was once hailed as the solution to economic inequality and the savior of the middle class. But as it stands today, it is a world where only the top echelon of creators are able to make a living, while the rest struggle to find their place in a market that is oversaturated and dominated by a few big players. It's time to take a hard look at the harsh reality of the creator economy and ask ourselves: is this really the future we want? They're not really talking about the same thing, and while the second article is certainly expressing a less original thought than the first, it's not really clear to me that one is plagiarizing the other. [1]: https://www.bigtechnology.com/p/the-creator-economy-was-way-overblown https://www.bigtechnology.com/p/the-creator-economy-was-way-... [2]: https://therationalist.substack.com/p/the-creator-economy-the-top-1-and https://therationalist.substack.com/p/the-creator-economy-th...