Fediverse task rabbit alternative, anyone?

there isn't. the only real protection is if you find your own clients and build your own relationships with them. but that's so difficult these days that you might as well just get a regular job in the same field.

idk the "official" definitions, but imo the main difference between the gig economy and a freelance job is the gig economy happens through a platform that often exploits you. for example, for the previous user's field, it would probably happen through fiverr, which takes 20%, actively pushes your competitors, and punishes for any attempt at communicating off-platform. for more "mainstream" gig work, you have platforms like uber and doordash, where everything is integrated so deeply that off-platform work might as well not exist.

part of the reason i think is that we just don't have well-known platforms that aren't exploiting both workers and clients, so both are having difficulties avoiding the exploiter in the middle.

My point is that it is not a hoax, as previously claimed.

It can be exploited, sure. But not worthy of dismissing as always a hoax!

Tbf "concept is a hoax" implies there is no existence of the concept as a non-hoax, they don't have to prove that every instance is good, your claim is that NONE are and ONE is enough to refute it. Be less hyperbolic and black/white thinking and eliminate that chance for rebuttal with words like "most" or "can be" or "often."

It's like "the myth of the good guy with a gun" article that was floating around a few years back, it leads people to complain that it "never happens," and then when you send 10 articles of exactly that happening, all of a sudden "myth" doesn't mean "doesn't exist" it just means "rare." But "mythical" as in "creatures" doesn't mean Unicorns are endangered, not even extinct, it means they aren't real at all. Then you inform them that the article that they used to justify calling it a "myth" (meaning here "rare" since we've already abandoned reality in favor of the fake definition) cites am estimate of 100,000 defensive gun uses/yr which is still 40,000 more than total gun deaths and for some reason 100,000 is rare and 60,000 is an epidemic (but nobody wants to talk about ~60% of that 60k, because 60% of that is male suicide and who fucking cares amirite? Only when it's convenient to use that stat does anyone pretend to.)

Much like the improper use of the word "myth" from that example, you using "hoax" to refer to the entire concept requires that entire concept to be intended to deceive categorically, which is strikingly easy to disprove by anyone who has a different experience than you've described. If the example above had just said "good guy..gun..rare" then (they'd still have the problem of being 40k+ on gun deaths and thus you're now claiming gun deaths are even more rare than defense, BUT) then it doesn't get invalidated by the existence of one occurance.

I'm both.

I take on various gig roles as a freelancer.