Much of what's freely-available is low-quality at best, propaganda (or worse) in the worst case.
Curation itself has value, and yet is constrained. This is in fact a major theme of Andrew Shapiro's The Control Revolution, and one of the tired arguments still encountered frequently today which was entirely anticipated over two decades ago.
What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce?
Anyone can, for vanishingly low cost, distribute or access nearly any information they like. Yes, curation is important - and, like other work, has value worth trading for calories.
Why the insistence on devaluing work, insisting the caloric cost of productivity not be compensated per its value to others?
"Calories" and "caloric cost" is a funny measure of value. Especially ironic given that from a nutritional perspective, they're what the poor get too much of and the rich do their best to avoid.
In the information-nutritional world, dross ("empty calories") is what FAANG throws at the plebeians to milk them of their money ("caloric value"?). So yeah, now it makes sense: You've got your "valuable" and "not valuable" bass-ackwards; what you come off as valuing highly is the offal that the rich throw to the poor.
I believe the absurdity is self-apparent.
If that's not their argument ... then what they're trying to state is less than clear.
My initial comment in the thread addressed specifically that:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29573768
Your own first comment rejected the claim that access to information was a problem, I addressed the additional concern that informational quality and relevance matter.
Compensation for that role still falls under my first comment, linked above.