That's quite valid way to see things, I think the nature of the value exchange and especially the platforms culpability in facilitating the exchange is a good way to look at it with an economic discourse. A moral perspective ascribes a moral value to the content, and there is of course the philosophical angle of choosing to live an authentic life and the digital platforms role of possibly eroding or disabling authenticity somewhat which is the main point of exploring the idea. Aka Belle Delphine's bath water. In the absence of a religious or legal-moral imperative tech gets used like this time and again to conduct zero sum games (assuming the pixels are actually ephemera and substantially worthless, like a NFT of Mickey Mouse, which is of course a value judgement). I like what you say about maintaining the illusion and the tunnels. So literally a network of 1.9M actors pretending with a network of lowly paid actors also pretending doesn't sound like a good use of tech to me, but is great for Fenix International. I wrote an article in 2020 about Uma Preman (https://medium.com/the-digital-ethicist/the-heroic-virtues-of-uma-preman-3f19751db916) who overcame many her disadvantages to help others who cannot help themselves (https://santhimedicalinfo.org/) she is virtuous and awesome. SV billionaires trying to buy up swathes of California to create a new Pantisocracy or whatever they are doing with their extraordinary tech platform profits less so. Maybe Fenix's owners have the golden ticket to SV Pantisocracy as well! Cheers for your response!