> they’ve got pretty serious potential for letting tech companies get paid for a seasoned voice actor’s unique delivery, tone, inflection, etc rather than the voice actor themselves.
I think you mean "steal the labor of an actor"?
Sure, and people that already agree with you will feel good reading it, but other people who don’t agree see it as an attack. It’s pretty much impossible to slip a new idea into someone’s mind if your approach made them slam the door before even considering it. So what’s the benefit of saying it like that?
It calls attention to the ethical implications of using a part of someone else's personal identity without their direct involvement.
Indirect involvement can still be ok within the confines of a license agreement for using the actor's voice.
But this requires a legal framework that mandates such licenses and effective emforcement / procecution of violations.
As far as I know, most countries are lagging behind when it comes to updating legislation to set binding rules around that.