I don't want to come across as rude, but I am fascinated how easy people are buying into these numbers. From my perspective the survey is in its current form far less informative than the original anecdote.

There is absolutely zero information on the data source he or Survate was using. The population seems to be selected based on the single factor age - meaning they might be getting the data from the easiest, cheapest accessible data sources available. In the end most of the responses could be coming from 30 y/o guys in India clicking on random answers to earn their 5c on mTurk.

In contrast to that, the original anecdotal evidence had the full story, provided the exact context on why and how the data was generated. But data without context is no data.