I think you're putting words in people's mouths. I don't think anyone is claiming that people are too stupid to know that a particular job is exploitative. The claim is that they know full well that these kinds of jobs are exploitative, but don't have much choice in the labor market, and so take them anyway.
Just because someone sees that they have little choice, and then chooses exploitation over poverty, homelessness, or starvation, it doesn't mean that it's ok that we have jobs that exploit workers. It's the role of labor regulators to try to reduce the exploitative nature of these jobs. And if a job can't exist without exploiting workers, then it must be shut down. This isn't new or particularly controversial; it's been the goal of labor movements for centuries.
I mean this in general terms; I have heard both good and bad stories about what it's like to drive for Uber, so I'm not quite ready to raise up the pitchforks against them, but I do believe they are worthy of more scrutiny.