I am not following the authors argument. This logic accidentally gate-keeps opinions of people with ethical objections, people who can't afford the time and money to use it and even people for whom the tool is inaccessible.
Any objection "This tool is built on stolen data" doesn't change based on whether I have used the tool for 50 hours or not.
By defining a "center" only through the lens of usage we don't find objectivity. This sounds like rationalising survivorship bias for those who are able to pay and participate.
Any objection "This tool is built on stolen data" doesn't change based on whether I have used the tool for 50 hours or not.
By defining a "center" only through the lens of usage we don't find objectivity. This sounds like rationalising survivorship bias for those who are able to pay and participate.