2. Subsidizing the service provider over market rates
You're responding to an argument that is claiming that the second thing is irrelevant to the conclusion.
i.e. whether or not you are subsidizing the service provider at a loss is irrelevant for the exploitation value. The exploitation is coming from elsewhere, and the subsidizing doesn't do anything about it.
I, personally, don't think they are being exploited but I agree that the subsidy doesn't remove exploitation if it did exist.
Yes this is what I meant. Slavery is a convenient example where exploitation is obviously occurring but could still encounter the same loss as the parent had claimed was proof of no exploitation.
1. Access to customer base
2. Subsidizing the service provider over market rates
You're responding to an argument that is claiming that the second thing is irrelevant to the conclusion.
i.e. whether or not you are subsidizing the service provider at a loss is irrelevant for the exploitation value. The exploitation is coming from elsewhere, and the subsidizing doesn't do anything about it.
I, personally, don't think they are being exploited but I agree that the subsidy doesn't remove exploitation if it did exist.