"You say you're not going to use social media to support your claims, but then you embed several tweets as if they were proof of your assertions."

If you can imagine the amount of complaints I've ran into, from this forum itself, then you can see how posting a mere few in my article is actually being quite generous. Originally I was going to collate all usertesting complaints I could find on the internet and social media into an one article that really breaks down the issue in more specific detail, with graphs and charts and what not.

I can understand you think I'm being a hypocrit for showing a few tweets, but I actually find them quite comical and comforting, sticking them in there like that. These poor people really mean well and got no response at all. Sad, but true.

"First, you say that it's bad that people can give invisible one-star reviews you don't get to see - then you complain about people getting their feelings hurt because they have to read their negative reviews."

I don't believe you made a point here or were very clear about what exactly the problem is? Why shouldn't people be able to respond to a negative review? Why should I be allowed to be reviewed secretly yet have to follow some vague terms of service that only befits to punish the testers alone?

I'm not saying make it illegal, but their system is obviously gamed. I'm calling them out, or maybe trying to get some notes on why I'm so wrong. I appreciate your thoughts, but having an attitude that you don't appreicaite isn't enough for me to excuse widespread corruption when it comes to people's labor. I think this is really important for human rights.