There is a big difference between being abused by your employer, on which you depend with your livelihood, and being a volunteer, who can literally walk away anytime without consequences.

I fail to see how a scenario where you can walk away any time and are being paid could ever be more abusive than a scenario where you can walk away at any time and are not being paid.

Not everyone works in cushy software-engineering jobs like us. minimum wage workers most of the time do not have a choice: its either work this job or none.

I urge you to not assume your position is the standard and to see beyond your nose.

In the UK you can't walk away anytime unless you have a job to go to, because making yourself intentionally unemployed means you have severely limited access to benefits.

You can also walk away anytime from employment without consequences. You just stop making money. At least that's how it is in America. Is UK government regulation different?

How is “not making money” not a consequence, exactly?

It is a consequence, but it is a consequence of both employment and volunteering.

No, it is a consequence of not being employed which is clearly what I wrote above and why you cant compare those situations.

That is not true in the UK. Walking away 'any time' can seriously impact your potential to get another job.

How are you abused if I give you an option to volunteer?