I do agree that Ben had less reason to say these things than we did.
However, Alice and Chloe also had a lot of reasons to say terrible things about us. Alice started her smear campaign against us right after she asked for $240,000 and we said no.
They were also incentivized to make everything sound maximally sad-sounding. Ben said if they did the emotional labor of sharing their sad stories, he’d give them $10,000. They knew that if their stories hadn’t been very sad (e.g. Alice said she did get food but it just wasn’t her first choice of food) they wouldn’t have received that money. Ben wouldn’t pay for emotional labor if there was no emotional labor to be found, and he wouldn’t write an article about how Alice wanted Burger King faster.
I do agree that Ben had less reason to say these things than we did.
However, Alice and Chloe also had a lot of reasons to say terrible things about us. Alice started her smear campaign against us right after she asked for $240,000 and we said no.
They were also incentivized to make everything sound maximally sad-sounding. Ben said if they did the emotional labor of sharing their sad stories, he’d give them $10,000. They knew that if their stories hadn’t been very sad (e.g. Alice said she did get food but it just wasn’t her first choice of food) they wouldn’t have received that money. Ben wouldn’t pay for emotional labor if there was no emotional labor to be found, and he wouldn’t write an article about how Alice wanted Burger King faster.
So you thought it appropriate to in response do a hitpiece on the author of the critique? Is that correct?