If the author means what I mean, then he does a very bad job countering the good arguments in favor of profit => increased responsibility (i.e. against mutually beneficial exploitation), while at the same time he portrays a very important ethical standpoint -- one held by many of those who devote their lives to the study of ethics -- as ridiculous. Why? I suspect that's because he never bothered to read any of the serious discussions on this issue, so he's arguing out of ignorance. I don't think that paints his arguments in any better light.
But you're just rewording it with synonyms in hopes of avoiding the application of the Copenhagen Interpretation to your/coldtea's post.
... because the blog author was already talking about "interaction" in terms of monetary benefits. ... because the author already wrote "At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more." and "doing more" is what increased responsibility is.Whether we use other synonyms such as "profit", "economic gains", "saving time", "outsourcing tedious work", etc, it doesn't matter.
Likewise, using synonyms such as "blame", "responsibility", "burden", "cross to bear", "moral debt", etc, doesn't change the interpretation.