#digital-labor — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #digital-labor, aggregated by home.social.
-
Platforms Externalize Risk, Internalize Profit
By Cliff Potts
Editor-in-Chief, WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 4, 2026The System Is Not Neutral
The modern Internet presents itself as a neutral space: open, decentralized, user-driven. That claim collapses under scrutiny. What exists today is not a neutral network but a set of tightly controlled corporate systems that systematically push risk outward while pulling profit inward.
This is not accidental behavior. It is the predictable outcome of incentive design.
Upside Centralized, Downside Distributed
Platforms capture value by aggregating attention, labor, and data at scale. Advertising revenue, market valuation, and strategic leverage accrue to the center. Meanwhile, volatility—income instability, account loss, harassment, burnout—is absorbed by individuals on the edges.
When algorithms change, creators lose reach.
When monetization rules shift, income disappears.
When accounts are suspended, livelihoods end.The platform’s exposure is limited. The user’s exposure is total.
Risk Without Recourse
In any functioning economic system, risk is paired with protection: contracts, insurance, due process, and appeal. On the Internet, those safeguards are conspicuously absent.
Users are bound by terms of service that can change unilaterally. Enforcement is opaque. Appeals are slow or nonexistent. Decisions are automated, final, and often unexplained. There is no meaningful right to contest outcomes that have real economic and psychological consequences.
Risk exists, but recourse does not.
Algorithmic Volatility as Policy
Income on the Internet is not merely uncertain; it is structurally unstable. Algorithms prioritize engagement, novelty, and growth. Stability is not an objective.
This means success today offers no protection tomorrow. Visibility is revocable. Distribution is conditional. Monetization is discretionary. What appears to be a career is, in reality, a series of temporary allowances.
Volatility is not a flaw in this system. It is a control mechanism.
Legal Distance as Business Strategy
Platforms insist they are not employers, not publishers, and not utilities. This legal distance allows them to avoid obligations that would otherwise attach to power.
Labor protections do not apply.
Publisher liability does not apply.
Public-service duties do not apply.What remains is a system with extraordinary influence and minimal responsibility. This arrangement would be unacceptable in banking, transportation, healthcare, or energy. That it persists online reflects regulatory choice, not technological necessity.
Externalized Harm, Internalized Growth
Harassment, misinformation, and abuse are routinely described as social problems rather than business outcomes. Yet these phenomena drive engagement, retention, and data generation.
The costs—mental health damage, reputational harm, social instability—are borne by users and communities. The benefits—traffic, revenue, valuation—are retained by platforms.
This asymmetry explains why harm persists even when it is well documented. Addressing it would reduce engagement. Reducing engagement would reduce profit.
The Illusion of Participation
Platforms frame risk as opportunity and instability as freedom. Users are told they are entrepreneurs, creators, partners. In reality, they are inputs—interchangeable and replaceable.
Participation is encouraged. Dependency is cultivated. Responsibility is denied.
When outcomes turn negative, the narrative shifts. The system remains blameless. The individual is told to adapt, pivot, or leave.
No One in Charge Is a Design Choice
It is often said that “no one is in charge of the Internet.” That is only partially true. Power is highly concentrated. Responsibility is not.
Oversight bodies exist, but they lack enforcement authority. Corporate governance focuses on shareholder value, not social impact. Political systems defer, delay, or decline to act.
This vacuum is not a failure of coordination. It is the intended result of decades of policy decisions that privileged growth over governance.
A Predictable Outcome
When systems are built to extract value without assuming responsibility, the result is predictable: instability for the many, security for the few.
This is not a moral argument. It is an institutional one.
The Internet did not become exploitative because people misused it. It became exploitative because it was allowed to operate without the constraints that govern every other major economic system.
Conclusion: Accountability Is the Missing Variable
Platforms externalize risk because they are permitted to do so. They internalize profit because no mechanism forces redistribution of responsibility.
Until that imbalance is addressed, no amount of innovation, moderation, or user education will correct the underlying problem.
The system is functioning as designed.
The outcomes reflect the design.And responsibility remains elsewhere—by choice.
For more information, for more social commentary and horror stories, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
References (APA)
Cunningham, S., & Craig, D. (2019). Social media entertainment: The new intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. NYU Press.
Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. Routledge.
Pew Research Center. (2022). The state of online creators and digital labor.
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text, 18(2), 33–58.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#algorithmicPower #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #internetGovernance #platformAccountability #riskExternalization #socioeconomicSystems #WPSNews -
Creators Absorb the Risk
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 3, 2026
Risk Has Been Offloaded
Platforms like to present themselves as neutral intermediaries. In practice, they are risk-shifting machines.
On TikTok, instability is not borne by the platform. It is externalized onto creators, sellers, and small operators who have the least capacity to absorb it.
When rules are unclear, enforcement is inconsistent, and discovery is opaque, the platform remains insulated. Everyone else pays the price.
Who Actually Pays When Things Break
When a platform decision goes wrong, the consequences are asymmetrical.
Creators lose reach, income, and archives. Sellers lose visibility, inventory momentum, and consumer trust. Consumers lose continuity and reliable access to legitimate vendors.
The platform loses none of these things. It loses, at most, a marginal engagement fluctuation—often invisible in aggregate metrics.
This imbalance is not accidental. It is structural.
Uncertainty as a Transfer Mechanism
Risk transfer does not require explicit contracts. It operates through design.
On TikTok, creators are asked to:
- Invest time and labor without guarantees
- Build audiences without stable discoverability
- Accept penalties without explanation
- Appeal decisions without meaningful review
Each of these conditions shifts uncertainty downward. The platform preserves flexibility. Users inherit volatility.
This mirrors broader patterns in platform capitalism, where firms minimize internal accountability by maximizing external dependency (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Myth of Equal Opportunity
TikTok often frames itself as a democratizing force—anyone can go viral, anyone can succeed.
That framing hides a harsher truth: when success is unpredictable and failure is unexplained, opportunity is not equal. It is arbitrary.
Arbitrary systems reward those with:
- Redundant income streams
- Cross-platform insulation
- Legal and technical resources
They punish those without buffers.
In other words, risk concentrates at the bottom.
Small Creators Carry Structural Exposure
Large brands and professional creators hedge. They mirror content across platforms. They maintain legal teams. They can absorb sudden losses.
Small creators cannot.
For them, a sudden visibility drop is not an inconvenience. It is existential. It can mean lost rent, abandoned projects, or withdrawal from creative work altogether.
A platform that routinely exposes its most vulnerable participants to uncompensated risk cannot credibly claim to empower them.
Why This Matters for TikTok Shop
This risk transfer becomes more severe when commerce is involved.
Selling requires inventory planning, customer support, and reputational stability. When sellers are subject to unexplained suppression or policy shifts, losses compound quickly.
A platform that asks sellers to shoulder systemic uncertainty while reserving unilateral control is not offering partnership. It is offering exposure.
That model may generate short-term activity. It does not generate durable markets.
Responsibility Without Accountability
TikTok benefits from creator labor, cultural production, and commercial participation. It retains the power to shape outcomes while disclaiming responsibility for them.
That combination—maximum control with minimum liability—is the defining feature of modern platform governance (Gillespie, 2018; Pasquale, 2015).
The result is predictable: creators absorb the risk, and the platform absorbs the value.
Naming the Imbalance
This essay is not an appeal for sympathy. It is a statement of structure.
As long as TikTok’s governance model continues to offload uncertainty onto those least equipped to manage it, participation will remain precarious and trust will remain fragile.
Risk cannot be eliminated. But it can be distributed honestly.
So far, it hasn’t been.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#contentModeration #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #platformRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
Creators Absorb the Risk
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 3, 2026
Risk Has Been Offloaded
Platforms like to present themselves as neutral intermediaries. In practice, they are risk-shifting machines.
On TikTok, instability is not borne by the platform. It is externalized onto creators, sellers, and small operators who have the least capacity to absorb it.
When rules are unclear, enforcement is inconsistent, and discovery is opaque, the platform remains insulated. Everyone else pays the price.
Who Actually Pays When Things Break
When a platform decision goes wrong, the consequences are asymmetrical.
Creators lose reach, income, and archives. Sellers lose visibility, inventory momentum, and consumer trust. Consumers lose continuity and reliable access to legitimate vendors.
The platform loses none of these things. It loses, at most, a marginal engagement fluctuation—often invisible in aggregate metrics.
This imbalance is not accidental. It is structural.
Uncertainty as a Transfer Mechanism
Risk transfer does not require explicit contracts. It operates through design.
On TikTok, creators are asked to:
- Invest time and labor without guarantees
- Build audiences without stable discoverability
- Accept penalties without explanation
- Appeal decisions without meaningful review
Each of these conditions shifts uncertainty downward. The platform preserves flexibility. Users inherit volatility.
This mirrors broader patterns in platform capitalism, where firms minimize internal accountability by maximizing external dependency (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Myth of Equal Opportunity
TikTok often frames itself as a democratizing force—anyone can go viral, anyone can succeed.
That framing hides a harsher truth: when success is unpredictable and failure is unexplained, opportunity is not equal. It is arbitrary.
Arbitrary systems reward those with:
- Redundant income streams
- Cross-platform insulation
- Legal and technical resources
They punish those without buffers.
In other words, risk concentrates at the bottom.
Small Creators Carry Structural Exposure
Large brands and professional creators hedge. They mirror content across platforms. They maintain legal teams. They can absorb sudden losses.
Small creators cannot.
For them, a sudden visibility drop is not an inconvenience. It is existential. It can mean lost rent, abandoned projects, or withdrawal from creative work altogether.
A platform that routinely exposes its most vulnerable participants to uncompensated risk cannot credibly claim to empower them.
Why This Matters for TikTok Shop
This risk transfer becomes more severe when commerce is involved.
Selling requires inventory planning, customer support, and reputational stability. When sellers are subject to unexplained suppression or policy shifts, losses compound quickly.
A platform that asks sellers to shoulder systemic uncertainty while reserving unilateral control is not offering partnership. It is offering exposure.
That model may generate short-term activity. It does not generate durable markets.
Responsibility Without Accountability
TikTok benefits from creator labor, cultural production, and commercial participation. It retains the power to shape outcomes while disclaiming responsibility for them.
That combination—maximum control with minimum liability—is the defining feature of modern platform governance (Gillespie, 2018; Pasquale, 2015).
The result is predictable: creators absorb the risk, and the platform absorbs the value.
Naming the Imbalance
This essay is not an appeal for sympathy. It is a statement of structure.
As long as TikTok’s governance model continues to offload uncertainty onto those least equipped to manage it, participation will remain precarious and trust will remain fragile.
Risk cannot be eliminated. But it can be distributed honestly.
So far, it hasn’t been.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#contentModeration #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #platformRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
Creators Absorb the Risk
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 3, 2026
Risk Has Been Offloaded
Platforms like to present themselves as neutral intermediaries. In practice, they are risk-shifting machines.
On TikTok, instability is not borne by the platform. It is externalized onto creators, sellers, and small operators who have the least capacity to absorb it.
When rules are unclear, enforcement is inconsistent, and discovery is opaque, the platform remains insulated. Everyone else pays the price.
Who Actually Pays When Things Break
When a platform decision goes wrong, the consequences are asymmetrical.
Creators lose reach, income, and archives. Sellers lose visibility, inventory momentum, and consumer trust. Consumers lose continuity and reliable access to legitimate vendors.
The platform loses none of these things. It loses, at most, a marginal engagement fluctuation—often invisible in aggregate metrics.
This imbalance is not accidental. It is structural.
Uncertainty as a Transfer Mechanism
Risk transfer does not require explicit contracts. It operates through design.
On TikTok, creators are asked to:
- Invest time and labor without guarantees
- Build audiences without stable discoverability
- Accept penalties without explanation
- Appeal decisions without meaningful review
Each of these conditions shifts uncertainty downward. The platform preserves flexibility. Users inherit volatility.
This mirrors broader patterns in platform capitalism, where firms minimize internal accountability by maximizing external dependency (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Myth of Equal Opportunity
TikTok often frames itself as a democratizing force—anyone can go viral, anyone can succeed.
That framing hides a harsher truth: when success is unpredictable and failure is unexplained, opportunity is not equal. It is arbitrary.
Arbitrary systems reward those with:
- Redundant income streams
- Cross-platform insulation
- Legal and technical resources
They punish those without buffers.
In other words, risk concentrates at the bottom.
Small Creators Carry Structural Exposure
Large brands and professional creators hedge. They mirror content across platforms. They maintain legal teams. They can absorb sudden losses.
Small creators cannot.
For them, a sudden visibility drop is not an inconvenience. It is existential. It can mean lost rent, abandoned projects, or withdrawal from creative work altogether.
A platform that routinely exposes its most vulnerable participants to uncompensated risk cannot credibly claim to empower them.
Why This Matters for TikTok Shop
This risk transfer becomes more severe when commerce is involved.
Selling requires inventory planning, customer support, and reputational stability. When sellers are subject to unexplained suppression or policy shifts, losses compound quickly.
A platform that asks sellers to shoulder systemic uncertainty while reserving unilateral control is not offering partnership. It is offering exposure.
That model may generate short-term activity. It does not generate durable markets.
Responsibility Without Accountability
TikTok benefits from creator labor, cultural production, and commercial participation. It retains the power to shape outcomes while disclaiming responsibility for them.
That combination—maximum control with minimum liability—is the defining feature of modern platform governance (Gillespie, 2018; Pasquale, 2015).
The result is predictable: creators absorb the risk, and the platform absorbs the value.
Naming the Imbalance
This essay is not an appeal for sympathy. It is a statement of structure.
As long as TikTok’s governance model continues to offload uncertainty onto those least equipped to manage it, participation will remain precarious and trust will remain fragile.
Risk cannot be eliminated. But it can be distributed honestly.
So far, it hasn’t been.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#contentModeration #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #platformRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
Creators Absorb the Risk
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 3, 2026
Risk Has Been Offloaded
Platforms like to present themselves as neutral intermediaries. In practice, they are risk-shifting machines.
On TikTok, instability is not borne by the platform. It is externalized onto creators, sellers, and small operators who have the least capacity to absorb it.
When rules are unclear, enforcement is inconsistent, and discovery is opaque, the platform remains insulated. Everyone else pays the price.
Who Actually Pays When Things Break
When a platform decision goes wrong, the consequences are asymmetrical.
Creators lose reach, income, and archives. Sellers lose visibility, inventory momentum, and consumer trust. Consumers lose continuity and reliable access to legitimate vendors.
The platform loses none of these things. It loses, at most, a marginal engagement fluctuation—often invisible in aggregate metrics.
This imbalance is not accidental. It is structural.
Uncertainty as a Transfer Mechanism
Risk transfer does not require explicit contracts. It operates through design.
On TikTok, creators are asked to:
- Invest time and labor without guarantees
- Build audiences without stable discoverability
- Accept penalties without explanation
- Appeal decisions without meaningful review
Each of these conditions shifts uncertainty downward. The platform preserves flexibility. Users inherit volatility.
This mirrors broader patterns in platform capitalism, where firms minimize internal accountability by maximizing external dependency (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Myth of Equal Opportunity
TikTok often frames itself as a democratizing force—anyone can go viral, anyone can succeed.
That framing hides a harsher truth: when success is unpredictable and failure is unexplained, opportunity is not equal. It is arbitrary.
Arbitrary systems reward those with:
- Redundant income streams
- Cross-platform insulation
- Legal and technical resources
They punish those without buffers.
In other words, risk concentrates at the bottom.
Small Creators Carry Structural Exposure
Large brands and professional creators hedge. They mirror content across platforms. They maintain legal teams. They can absorb sudden losses.
Small creators cannot.
For them, a sudden visibility drop is not an inconvenience. It is existential. It can mean lost rent, abandoned projects, or withdrawal from creative work altogether.
A platform that routinely exposes its most vulnerable participants to uncompensated risk cannot credibly claim to empower them.
Why This Matters for TikTok Shop
This risk transfer becomes more severe when commerce is involved.
Selling requires inventory planning, customer support, and reputational stability. When sellers are subject to unexplained suppression or policy shifts, losses compound quickly.
A platform that asks sellers to shoulder systemic uncertainty while reserving unilateral control is not offering partnership. It is offering exposure.
That model may generate short-term activity. It does not generate durable markets.
Responsibility Without Accountability
TikTok benefits from creator labor, cultural production, and commercial participation. It retains the power to shape outcomes while disclaiming responsibility for them.
That combination—maximum control with minimum liability—is the defining feature of modern platform governance (Gillespie, 2018; Pasquale, 2015).
The result is predictable: creators absorb the risk, and the platform absorbs the value.
Naming the Imbalance
This essay is not an appeal for sympathy. It is a statement of structure.
As long as TikTok’s governance model continues to offload uncertainty onto those least equipped to manage it, participation will remain precarious and trust will remain fragile.
Risk cannot be eliminated. But it can be distributed honestly.
So far, it hasn’t been.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#contentModeration #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #platformRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
Creators Absorb the Risk
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 3, 2026
Risk Has Been Offloaded
Platforms like to present themselves as neutral intermediaries. In practice, they are risk-shifting machines.
On TikTok, instability is not borne by the platform. It is externalized onto creators, sellers, and small operators who have the least capacity to absorb it.
When rules are unclear, enforcement is inconsistent, and discovery is opaque, the platform remains insulated. Everyone else pays the price.
Who Actually Pays When Things Break
When a platform decision goes wrong, the consequences are asymmetrical.
Creators lose reach, income, and archives. Sellers lose visibility, inventory momentum, and consumer trust. Consumers lose continuity and reliable access to legitimate vendors.
The platform loses none of these things. It loses, at most, a marginal engagement fluctuation—often invisible in aggregate metrics.
This imbalance is not accidental. It is structural.
Uncertainty as a Transfer Mechanism
Risk transfer does not require explicit contracts. It operates through design.
On TikTok, creators are asked to:
- Invest time and labor without guarantees
- Build audiences without stable discoverability
- Accept penalties without explanation
- Appeal decisions without meaningful review
Each of these conditions shifts uncertainty downward. The platform preserves flexibility. Users inherit volatility.
This mirrors broader patterns in platform capitalism, where firms minimize internal accountability by maximizing external dependency (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The Myth of Equal Opportunity
TikTok often frames itself as a democratizing force—anyone can go viral, anyone can succeed.
That framing hides a harsher truth: when success is unpredictable and failure is unexplained, opportunity is not equal. It is arbitrary.
Arbitrary systems reward those with:
- Redundant income streams
- Cross-platform insulation
- Legal and technical resources
They punish those without buffers.
In other words, risk concentrates at the bottom.
Small Creators Carry Structural Exposure
Large brands and professional creators hedge. They mirror content across platforms. They maintain legal teams. They can absorb sudden losses.
Small creators cannot.
For them, a sudden visibility drop is not an inconvenience. It is existential. It can mean lost rent, abandoned projects, or withdrawal from creative work altogether.
A platform that routinely exposes its most vulnerable participants to uncompensated risk cannot credibly claim to empower them.
Why This Matters for TikTok Shop
This risk transfer becomes more severe when commerce is involved.
Selling requires inventory planning, customer support, and reputational stability. When sellers are subject to unexplained suppression or policy shifts, losses compound quickly.
A platform that asks sellers to shoulder systemic uncertainty while reserving unilateral control is not offering partnership. It is offering exposure.
That model may generate short-term activity. It does not generate durable markets.
Responsibility Without Accountability
TikTok benefits from creator labor, cultural production, and commercial participation. It retains the power to shape outcomes while disclaiming responsibility for them.
That combination—maximum control with minimum liability—is the defining feature of modern platform governance (Gillespie, 2018; Pasquale, 2015).
The result is predictable: creators absorb the risk, and the platform absorbs the value.
Naming the Imbalance
This essay is not an appeal for sympathy. It is a statement of structure.
As long as TikTok’s governance model continues to offload uncertainty onto those least equipped to manage it, participation will remain precarious and trust will remain fragile.
Risk cannot be eliminated. But it can be distributed honestly.
So far, it hasn’t been.
For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.
APA Citations:
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
#contentModeration #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #platformRisk #TikTok #TikTokShop -
The Social Codes of Tech Workers: Class Identity in Digital Capitalism
Robert Dorschel
(MIT Press, 2026)
"Digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives. Yet little attention has been paid to the tech workers who design and program these technologies. Instead, the spotlight often falls on two extremes: the elite class of tech entrepreneurs and the precarious digital proletariat of gig and crowd workers. This narrow focus has left a critical gap in understanding the middle-class professionals operating behind the scenes of digital capitalism.
Drawing on over 50 original interviews and discourse analytical research conducted in the US and Germany, The Social Codes of Tech Workers takes readers deep into their hearts and minds. Robert Dorschel demonstrates how tech workers’ subjectivity is structured by a return of social critique, hybrid professional roles, and distinctive lifestyles. The book identifies tech workers as a contradictory class formation, oscillating between a spirit of emancipation and yet another spirit of capitalism. This work will appeal to scholars across disciplines concerned with digital labor, identity, and class, as well as to the broader public interested in the culture of the tech industry and the evolving future of work."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262553537/the-social-codes-of-tech-workers/
#Capitalism #Class #DigitalCapitalism #Sociology #DigitalLabor #Programming #Coding
-
The Social Codes of Tech Workers: Class Identity in Digital Capitalism
Robert Dorschel
(MIT Press, 2026)
"Digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives. Yet little attention has been paid to the tech workers who design and program these technologies. Instead, the spotlight often falls on two extremes: the elite class of tech entrepreneurs and the precarious digital proletariat of gig and crowd workers. This narrow focus has left a critical gap in understanding the middle-class professionals operating behind the scenes of digital capitalism.
Drawing on over 50 original interviews and discourse analytical research conducted in the US and Germany, The Social Codes of Tech Workers takes readers deep into their hearts and minds. Robert Dorschel demonstrates how tech workers’ subjectivity is structured by a return of social critique, hybrid professional roles, and distinctive lifestyles. The book identifies tech workers as a contradictory class formation, oscillating between a spirit of emancipation and yet another spirit of capitalism. This work will appeal to scholars across disciplines concerned with digital labor, identity, and class, as well as to the broader public interested in the culture of the tech industry and the evolving future of work."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262553537/the-social-codes-of-tech-workers/
#Capitalism #Class #DigitalCapitalism #Sociology #DigitalLabor #Programming #Coding
-
The Social Codes of Tech Workers: Class Identity in Digital Capitalism
Robert Dorschel
(MIT Press, 2026)
"Digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives. Yet little attention has been paid to the tech workers who design and program these technologies. Instead, the spotlight often falls on two extremes: the elite class of tech entrepreneurs and the precarious digital proletariat of gig and crowd workers. This narrow focus has left a critical gap in understanding the middle-class professionals operating behind the scenes of digital capitalism.
Drawing on over 50 original interviews and discourse analytical research conducted in the US and Germany, The Social Codes of Tech Workers takes readers deep into their hearts and minds. Robert Dorschel demonstrates how tech workers’ subjectivity is structured by a return of social critique, hybrid professional roles, and distinctive lifestyles. The book identifies tech workers as a contradictory class formation, oscillating between a spirit of emancipation and yet another spirit of capitalism. This work will appeal to scholars across disciplines concerned with digital labor, identity, and class, as well as to the broader public interested in the culture of the tech industry and the evolving future of work."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262553537/the-social-codes-of-tech-workers/
#Capitalism #Class #DigitalCapitalism #Sociology #DigitalLabor #Programming #Coding
-
The Social Codes of Tech Workers: Class Identity in Digital Capitalism
Robert Dorschel
(MIT Press, 2026)
"Digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives. Yet little attention has been paid to the tech workers who design and program these technologies. Instead, the spotlight often falls on two extremes: the elite class of tech entrepreneurs and the precarious digital proletariat of gig and crowd workers. This narrow focus has left a critical gap in understanding the middle-class professionals operating behind the scenes of digital capitalism.
Drawing on over 50 original interviews and discourse analytical research conducted in the US and Germany, The Social Codes of Tech Workers takes readers deep into their hearts and minds. Robert Dorschel demonstrates how tech workers’ subjectivity is structured by a return of social critique, hybrid professional roles, and distinctive lifestyles. The book identifies tech workers as a contradictory class formation, oscillating between a spirit of emancipation and yet another spirit of capitalism. This work will appeal to scholars across disciplines concerned with digital labor, identity, and class, as well as to the broader public interested in the culture of the tech industry and the evolving future of work."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262553537/the-social-codes-of-tech-workers/
#Capitalism #Class #DigitalCapitalism #Sociology #DigitalLabor #Programming #Coding
-
The Social Codes of Tech Workers: Class Identity in Digital Capitalism
Robert Dorschel
(MIT Press, 2026)
"Digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives. Yet little attention has been paid to the tech workers who design and program these technologies. Instead, the spotlight often falls on two extremes: the elite class of tech entrepreneurs and the precarious digital proletariat of gig and crowd workers. This narrow focus has left a critical gap in understanding the middle-class professionals operating behind the scenes of digital capitalism.
Drawing on over 50 original interviews and discourse analytical research conducted in the US and Germany, The Social Codes of Tech Workers takes readers deep into their hearts and minds. Robert Dorschel demonstrates how tech workers’ subjectivity is structured by a return of social critique, hybrid professional roles, and distinctive lifestyles. The book identifies tech workers as a contradictory class formation, oscillating between a spirit of emancipation and yet another spirit of capitalism. This work will appeal to scholars across disciplines concerned with digital labor, identity, and class, as well as to the broader public interested in the culture of the tech industry and the evolving future of work."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262553537/the-social-codes-of-tech-workers/
#Capitalism #Class #DigitalCapitalism #Sociology #DigitalLabor #Programming #Coding
-
Xu hướng lao động số thời AI: Các kỹ sư trẻ tại Philippines nay có thể điều khiển robot làm việc từ xa ở Nhật Bản. Điều này đang định hình lại cách chúng ta làm việc trong kỷ nguyên tự động hoá, mở ra một hình thức làm việc xuyên biên giới hoàn toàn mới.
#LaoĐộngSố #AI #Robot #TựĐộngHoá #CôngNghệ #NhậtBản
#DigitalLabor #FutureOfWork #RemoteWork #Robotics #Automation #Japan -
Xu hướng lao động số thời AI: Các kỹ sư trẻ tại Philippines nay có thể điều khiển robot làm việc từ xa ở Nhật Bản. Điều này đang định hình lại cách chúng ta làm việc trong kỷ nguyên tự động hoá, mở ra một hình thức làm việc xuyên biên giới hoàn toàn mới.
#LaoĐộngSố #AI #Robot #TựĐộngHoá #CôngNghệ #NhậtBản
#DigitalLabor #FutureOfWork #RemoteWork #Robotics #Automation #Japan -
Wikimedia just launched a database specifically for AI training. The same organization that runs Wikipedia—built entirely by human volunteers—now packages that knowledge for machines.
The irony cuts deep. Humans created it. Machines will profit from it. The volunteers get nothing.
#AI #Wikipedia #OpenData #DigitalLabor
https://gizmodo.com/wikimedia-is-making-its-data-ai-friendly-2000666150
-
Wikimedia just launched a database specifically for AI training. The same organization that runs Wikipedia—built entirely by human volunteers—now packages that knowledge for machines.
The irony cuts deep. Humans created it. Machines will profit from it. The volunteers get nothing.
#AI #Wikipedia #OpenData #DigitalLabor
https://gizmodo.com/wikimedia-is-making-its-data-ai-friendly-2000666150
-
Wikimedia just launched a database specifically for AI training. The same organization that runs Wikipedia—built entirely by human volunteers—now packages that knowledge for machines.
The irony cuts deep. Humans created it. Machines will profit from it. The volunteers get nothing.
#AI #Wikipedia #OpenData #DigitalLabor
https://gizmodo.com/wikimedia-is-making-its-data-ai-friendly-2000666150
-
Wikimedia just launched a database specifically for AI training. The same organization that runs Wikipedia—built entirely by human volunteers—now packages that knowledge for machines.
The irony cuts deep. Humans created it. Machines will profit from it. The volunteers get nothing.
#AI #Wikipedia #OpenData #DigitalLabor
https://gizmodo.com/wikimedia-is-making-its-data-ai-friendly-2000666150
-
https://rumble.com/v6z5qfu-lonely-nights-streams-featuring-asianbunnyx.html
Lonely Nights Streams Featuring AsianBunnyX
.
.
.
Linktr.ee/562AlexD#AsianBunnyX #Twitch #ContentCreation #DigitalArt #Cosplay #StreamingCulture #OnlineInfluencers #DigitalLabor #PrivacyConcerns #PersonalBranding #EntertainmentIndustry #CulturalImpact #Resilience
-
What an interesting—and unsettling—read: Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” Is this the Uberization of intellectual work? #AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights Via @melaniemitchell.bsky.social
The End of Publishing as We Kn... -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read: Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” Is this the Uberization of intellectual work? #AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights Via @melaniemitchell.bsky.social
The End of Publishing as We Kn... -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read: Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” Is this the Uberization of intellectual work? #AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights Via @melaniemitchell.bsky.social
The End of Publishing as We Kn... -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read:
Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” But history tells us what happens when platforms remove the so-called middlemen: control shifts, labor is devalued, and creators lose agency.
Is this the Uberization of intellectual work?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/06/generative-ai-pirated-articles-books/683009/
#AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read:
Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” But history tells us what happens when platforms remove the so-called middlemen: control shifts, labor is devalued, and creators lose agency.
Is this the Uberization of intellectual work?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/06/generative-ai-pirated-articles-books/683009/
#AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read:
Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” But history tells us what happens when platforms remove the so-called middlemen: control shifts, labor is devalued, and creators lose agency.
Is this the Uberization of intellectual work?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/06/generative-ai-pirated-articles-books/683009/
#AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read:
Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” But history tells us what happens when platforms remove the so-called middlemen: control shifts, labor is devalued, and creators lose agency.
Is this the Uberization of intellectual work?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/06/generative-ai-pirated-articles-books/683009/
#AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights -
What an interesting—and unsettling—read:
Google’s Sundar Pichai suggests a “marketplace” will emerge where creators simply “create for AI.” But history tells us what happens when platforms remove the so-called middlemen: control shifts, labor is devalued, and creators lose agency.
Is this the Uberization of intellectual work?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/06/generative-ai-pirated-articles-books/683009/
#AIethics #DigitalLabor #CreativeRights -
What do platforms really do?
In 1986, David S. Landes wrote the essay, ‘What Do Bosses Really Do?’. He argues that the historical role of the ‘boss’ was an essential function for organizing production and connecting producers to markets. Digital platforms have become the new bosses. Platforms have the same functions of market creation, labor specialization, and management, but they have replaced the physical factory floor with algorithmic management. While their methods are novel, platforms are the direct descendants of the merchant-entrepreneurs and factory owners Landes described, solving the same historical problems of production in remarkably similar ways.
Design for a Teacup (1880-1910) painting in high resolution by Noritake Factory. Original from The Smithsonian Institution. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.So, why am I posting this on my own blog and not on a “platform”? I don’t view writing as a financial transaction. It is a hobby. By putting the financialization lens front and center, platforms are killing the mental space for hobbies. When you monetize tweets, you create incentive to craft tweets that create engagement in particular ways. Usually not healthy ways.
If we think of old media or traditional manufacturing, we can compare them to guilds. Guilds kept up prices and controlled production. With the simplification of tasks factories could hire workers who weren’t as highly skilled but didn’t need to be. Nowadays, why should any newspaper or TV channel’s output be limited by the amount of airtime or page space they have?
Platforms take unskilled and train them. We are in the age of specialization of ideas. Akin to the “the advantage of disaggregating a productive process” Platforms leverage this by having many producers explore the same space through millions of different angles. This allows the platform to “purchase exactly that precise quantity of [skill] which is necessary for each process” —paying a viral star a lot and a niche creator a little, perfectly matching reward to market impact. Which is to say platforms make money through whatever sticks.
In Landes’s essay, Management became specialized, today management will become algorithmized. Platforms abstract away the issues that factory owners had such as embezzlement of resources, slacking off etc. Platforms don’t care how much or how little you produce, or even if you produce. If you do, the cash is yours (after a cut of course).
This may lead to a visceral reaction against platforms. This week when Substack raised a substantial amount they called the writers “the heroes of culture”. This should ring at least a tiny alarm in your head. The platform’s rhetoric of the creator-as-hero is a shrewd economic arrangement. In the putting-out system, the merchant-manufacturer “was able to shift capital expenditures (plant and equipment) to the worker”. Platforms do the same with creative risk. The writer, artist, or creator invests all the time and labor—the “capital” of creation—upfront. If they fail, they bear the entire loss. The platform, like the putter-outer, only participates in the upside, taking its cut from the successful ‘heroes’ while remaining insulated from the failures of the many.
So what do platforms really do? They have resurrected the essential role of the boss for the digital age. They are the merchant-manufacturers who build the roads to market, and they are the factory owners who discipline production—not with overseers, but with incentive algorithms. By casting the creator as the hero, they obscure their own power and shift the immense risks of creative work onto the individual. While appearing to be mere background IT admins, they are, in fact, the central organizers of production, demonstrating that even in the 21st century, the fundamental challenges of coordinating labor and capital persist, and solving them remains, as it was in the 18th century, a very lucrative role.
What Do Bosses Really Do?, David S. Landes, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 585-623 (39 pages). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121476
#algorithmicManagement #Business #capitalism #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #economicHistory #economics #futureOfWork #history #IndustrialRevolution #Leadership #management #monetization #philosophy #platforms #Startups #Substack #techCriticism #technology #writing
-
What do platforms really do?
In 1986, David S. Landes wrote the essay, ‘What Do Bosses Really Do?’. He argues that the historical role of the ‘boss’ was an essential function for organizing production and connecting producers to markets. Digital platforms have become the new bosses. Platforms have the same functions of market creation, labor specialization, and management, but they have replaced the physical factory floor with algorithmic management. While their methods are novel, platforms are the direct descendants of the merchant-entrepreneurs and factory owners Landes described, solving the same historical problems of production in remarkably similar ways.
Design for a Teacup (1880-1910) painting in high resolution by Noritake Factory. Original from The Smithsonian Institution. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.So, why am I posting this on my own blog and not on a “platform”? I don’t view writing as a financial transaction. It is a hobby. By putting the financialization lens front and center, platforms are killing the mental space for hobbies. When you monetize tweets, you create incentive to craft tweets that create engagement in particular ways. Usually not healthy ways.
If we think of old media or traditional manufacturing, we can compare them to guilds. Guilds kept up prices and controlled production. With the simplification of tasks factories could hire workers who weren’t as highly skilled but didn’t need to be. Nowadays, why should any newspaper or TV channel’s output be limited by the amount of airtime or page space they have?
Platforms take unskilled and train them. We are in the age of specialization of ideas. Akin to the “the advantage of disaggregating a productive process” Platforms leverage this by having many producers explore the same space through millions of different angles. This allows the platform to “purchase exactly that precise quantity of [skill] which is necessary for each process” —paying a viral star a lot and a niche creator a little, perfectly matching reward to market impact. Which is to say platforms make money through whatever sticks.
In Landes’s essay, Management became specialized, today management will become algorithmized. Platforms abstract away the issues that factory owners had such as embezzlement of resources, slacking off etc. Platforms don’t care how much or how little you produce, or even if you produce. If you do, the cash is yours (after a cut of course).
This may lead to a visceral reaction against platforms. This week when Substack raised a substantial amount they called the writers “the heroes of culture”. This should ring at least a tiny alarm in your head. The platform’s rhetoric of the creator-as-hero is a shrewd economic arrangement. In the putting-out system, the merchant-manufacturer “was able to shift capital expenditures (plant and equipment) to the worker”. Platforms do the same with creative risk. The writer, artist, or creator invests all the time and labor—the “capital” of creation—upfront. If they fail, they bear the entire loss. The platform, like the putter-outer, only participates in the upside, taking its cut from the successful ‘heroes’ while remaining insulated from the failures of the many.
So what do platforms really do? They have resurrected the essential role of the boss for the digital age. They are the merchant-manufacturers who build the roads to market, and they are the factory owners who discipline production—not with overseers, but with incentive algorithms. By casting the creator as the hero, they obscure their own power and shift the immense risks of creative work onto the individual. While appearing to be mere background IT admins, they are, in fact, the central organizers of production, demonstrating that even in the 21st century, the fundamental challenges of coordinating labor and capital persist, and solving them remains, as it was in the 18th century, a very lucrative role.
What Do Bosses Really Do?, David S. Landes, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 585-623 (39 pages). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121476
#algorithmicManagement #Business #capitalism #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #economicHistory #economics #futureOfWork #history #IndustrialRevolution #Leadership #management #monetization #philosophy #platforms #Startups #Substack #techCriticism #technology #writing
-
What do platforms really do?
In 1986, David S. Landes wrote the essay, ‘What Do Bosses Really Do?’. He argues that the historical role of the ‘boss’ was an essential function for organizing production and connecting producers to markets. Digital platforms have become the new bosses. Platforms have the same functions of market creation, labor specialization, and management, but they have replaced the physical factory floor with algorithmic management. While their methods are novel, platforms are the direct descendants of the merchant-entrepreneurs and factory owners Landes described, solving the same historical problems of production in remarkably similar ways.
Design for a Teacup (1880-1910) painting in high resolution by Noritake Factory. Original from The Smithsonian Institution. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.So, why am I posting this on my own blog and not on a “platform”? I don’t view writing as a financial transaction. It is a hobby. By putting the financialization lens front and center, platforms are killing the mental space for hobbies. When you monetize tweets, you create incentive to craft tweets that create engagement in particular ways. Usually not healthy ways.
If we think of old media or traditional manufacturing, we can compare them to guilds. Guilds kept up prices and controlled production. With the simplification of tasks factories could hire workers who weren’t as highly skilled but didn’t need to be. Nowadays, why should any newspaper or TV channel’s output be limited by the amount of airtime or page space they have?
Platforms take unskilled and train them. We are in the age of specialization of ideas. Akin to the “the advantage of disaggregating a productive process” Platforms leverage this by having many producers explore the same space through millions of different angles. This allows the platform to “purchase exactly that precise quantity of [skill] which is necessary for each process” —paying a viral star a lot and a niche creator a little, perfectly matching reward to market impact. Which is to say platforms make money through whatever sticks.
In Landes’s essay, Management became specialized, today management will become algorithmized. Platforms abstract away the issues that factory owners had such as embezzlement of resources, slacking off etc. Platforms don’t care how much or how little you produce, or even if you produce. If you do, the cash is yours (after a cut of course).
This may lead to a visceral reaction against platforms. This week when Substack raised a substantial amount they called the writers “the heroes of culture”. This should ring at least a tiny alarm in your head. The platform’s rhetoric of the creator-as-hero is a shrewd economic arrangement. In the putting-out system, the merchant-manufacturer “was able to shift capital expenditures (plant and equipment) to the worker”. Platforms do the same with creative risk. The writer, artist, or creator invests all the time and labor—the “capital” of creation—upfront. If they fail, they bear the entire loss. The platform, like the putter-outer, only participates in the upside, taking its cut from the successful ‘heroes’ while remaining insulated from the failures of the many.
So what do platforms really do? They have resurrected the essential role of the boss for the digital age. They are the merchant-manufacturers who build the roads to market, and they are the factory owners who discipline production—not with overseers, but with incentive algorithms. By casting the creator as the hero, they obscure their own power and shift the immense risks of creative work onto the individual. While appearing to be mere background IT admins, they are, in fact, the central organizers of production, demonstrating that even in the 21st century, the fundamental challenges of coordinating labor and capital persist, and solving them remains, as it was in the 18th century, a very lucrative role.
What Do Bosses Really Do?, David S. Landes, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 585-623 (39 pages). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121476
#algorithmicManagement #Business #capitalism #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #economicHistory #economics #futureOfWork #history #IndustrialRevolution #Leadership #management #monetization #philosophy #platforms #Startups #Substack #techCriticism #technology #writing
-
What do platforms really do?
In 1986, David S. Landes wrote the essay, ‘What Do Bosses Really Do?’. He argues that the historical role of the ‘boss’ was an essential function for organizing production and connecting producers to markets. Digital platforms have become the new bosses. Platforms have the same functions of market creation, labor specialization, and management, but they have replaced the physical factory floor with algorithmic management. While their methods are novel, platforms are the direct descendants of the merchant-entrepreneurs and factory owners Landes described, solving the same historical problems of production in remarkably similar ways.
Design for a Teacup (1880-1910) painting in high resolution by Noritake Factory. Original from The Smithsonian Institution. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.So, why am I posting this on my own blog and not on a “platform”? I don’t view writing as a financial transaction. It is a hobby. By putting the financialization lens front and center, platforms are killing the mental space for hobbies. When you monetize tweets, you create incentive to craft tweets that create engagement in particular ways. Usually not healthy ways.
If we think of old media or traditional manufacturing, we can compare them to guilds. Guilds kept up prices and controlled production. With the simplification of tasks factories could hire workers who weren’t as highly skilled but didn’t need to be. Nowadays, why should any newspaper or TV channel’s output be limited by the amount of airtime or page space they have?
Platforms take unskilled and train them. We are in the age of specialization of ideas. Akin to the “the advantage of disaggregating a productive process” Platforms leverage this by having many producers explore the same space through millions of different angles. This allows the platform to “purchase exactly that precise quantity of [skill] which is necessary for each process” —paying a viral star a lot and a niche creator a little, perfectly matching reward to market impact. Which is to say platforms make money through whatever sticks.
In Landes’s essay, Management became specialized, today management will become algorithmized. Platforms abstract away the issues that factory owners had such as embezzlement of resources, slacking off etc. Platforms don’t care how much or how little you produce, or even if you produce. If you do, the cash is yours (after a cut of course).
This may lead to a visceral reaction against platforms. This week when Substack raised a substantial amount they called the writers “the heroes of culture”. This should ring at least a tiny alarm in your head. The platform’s rhetoric of the creator-as-hero is a shrewd economic arrangement. In the putting-out system, the merchant-manufacturer “was able to shift capital expenditures (plant and equipment) to the worker”. Platforms do the same with creative risk. The writer, artist, or creator invests all the time and labor—the “capital” of creation—upfront. If they fail, they bear the entire loss. The platform, like the putter-outer, only participates in the upside, taking its cut from the successful ‘heroes’ while remaining insulated from the failures of the many.
So what do platforms really do? They have resurrected the essential role of the boss for the digital age. They are the merchant-manufacturers who build the roads to market, and they are the factory owners who discipline production—not with overseers, but with incentive algorithms. By casting the creator as the hero, they obscure their own power and shift the immense risks of creative work onto the individual. While appearing to be mere background IT admins, they are, in fact, the central organizers of production, demonstrating that even in the 21st century, the fundamental challenges of coordinating labor and capital persist, and solving them remains, as it was in the 18th century, a very lucrative role.
What Do Bosses Really Do?, David S. Landes, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 585-623 (39 pages). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121476
#algorithmicManagement #Business #capitalism #creatorEconomy #digitalLabor #economicHistory #economics #futureOfWork #history #IndustrialRevolution #Leadership #management #monetization #philosophy #platforms #Startups #Substack #techCriticism #technology #writing
-
Das Digitallabor in Wuppertal wurde eröffnet
Das neue Digitallabor „Piksl im Aufbruch“ ist jetzt eröffnet worden. Mit ihm steht den Anwohnerinnen und Anwohnern des…
#Wuppertal #Deutschland #Deutsch #DE #Schlagzeilen #Headlines #Nachrichten #News #Europe #Europa #EU #Arbeitsplätze #Arrenberg #Aufbruch #digitale #Digitaler #Digitallabor #Fröbelstraße #Germany #Hilfestellung #Inklusive #Nordrhein-Westfalen #Piksl #THEMEN
https://www.europesays.com/de/275519/ -
New publication: “Ethics of Data Work”
How can fairer working conditions for data workers be created? A new Discussion Paper outlines guidelines for the use of data work in academic research:
https://www.weizenbaum-institut.de/en/news/detail/ethics-of-data-work/
Authors: T Yang, @strippel, A Keiner, @dylan, A Chávez, K Kauffman, M Pohl, C Sinders, @milamiceli
#DataWork #FairWork #ResearchEthics #DigitalLabor #ResponsibleResearch #AIethics #LaborRights #research #openaccess @towardsfairwork
-
New publication: “Ethics of Data Work”
How can fairer working conditions for data workers be created? A new Discussion Paper outlines guidelines for the use of data work in academic research:
https://www.weizenbaum-institut.de/en/news/detail/ethics-of-data-work/
Authors: T Yang, @strippel, A Keiner, @dylan, A Chávez, K Kauffman, M Pohl, C Sinders, @milamiceli
#DataWork #FairWork #ResearchEthics #DigitalLabor #ResponsibleResearch #AIethics #LaborRights #research #openaccess @towardsfairwork
-
New publication: “Ethics of Data Work”
How can fairer working conditions for data workers be created? A new Discussion Paper outlines guidelines for the use of data work in academic research:
https://www.weizenbaum-institut.de/en/news/detail/ethics-of-data-work/
Authors: T Yang, @strippel, A Keiner, @dylan, A Chávez, K Kauffman, M Pohl, C Sinders, @milamiceli
#DataWork #FairWork #ResearchEthics #DigitalLabor #ResponsibleResearch #AIethics #LaborRights #research #openaccess @towardsfairwork
-
New publication: “Ethics of Data Work”
How can fairer working conditions for data workers be created? A new Discussion Paper outlines guidelines for the use of data work in academic research:
https://www.weizenbaum-institut.de/en/news/detail/ethics-of-data-work/
Authors: T Yang, @strippel, A Keiner, @dylan, A Chávez, K Kauffman, M Pohl, C Sinders, @milamiceli
#DataWork #FairWork #ResearchEthics #DigitalLabor #ResponsibleResearch #AIethics #LaborRights #research #openaccess @towardsfairwork
-
New publication: “Ethics of Data Work”
How can fairer working conditions for data workers be created? A new Discussion Paper outlines guidelines for the use of data work in academic research:
https://www.weizenbaum-institut.de/en/news/detail/ethics-of-data-work/
Authors: T Yang, @strippel, A Keiner, @dylan, A Chávez, K Kauffman, M Pohl, C Sinders, @milamiceli
#DataWork #FairWork #ResearchEthics #DigitalLabor #ResponsibleResearch #AIethics #LaborRights #research #openaccess @towardsfairwork
-
Is https://www.handover.ai/ a cool #knowledgemanagement hack (software video interviews you, generates a role-specific handoff kit) or a way to get human workers to offboard to #digitallabor replacements. Does what you know belong to you, or your employer?
-
Is https://www.handover.ai/ a cool #knowledgemanagement hack (software video interviews you, generates a role-specific handoff kit) or a way to get human workers to offboard to #digitallabor replacements. Does what you know belong to you, or your employer?
-
Is https://www.handover.ai/ a cool #knowledgemanagement hack (software video interviews you, generates a role-specific handoff kit) or a way to get human workers to offboard to #digitallabor replacements. Does what you know belong to you, or your employer?
-
Is https://www.handover.ai/ a cool #knowledgemanagement hack (software video interviews you, generates a role-specific handoff kit) or a way to get human workers to offboard to #digitallabor replacements. Does what you know belong to you, or your employer?
-
Is https://www.handover.ai/ a cool #knowledgemanagement hack (software video interviews you, generates a role-specific handoff kit) or a way to get human workers to offboard to #digitallabor replacements. Does what you know belong to you, or your employer?
-
We might #tax close to the edge of harm. Watts and water at data centers (favoring harder-to-meter #decentralized #AI). Collect unemployment insurance (and #basicincome contributions) from employers of #digitallabor.
-
We might #tax close to the edge of harm. Watts and water at data centers (favoring harder-to-meter #decentralized #AI). Collect unemployment insurance (and #basicincome contributions) from employers of #digitallabor.
-
We might #tax close to the edge of harm. Watts and water at data centers (favoring harder-to-meter #decentralized #AI). Collect unemployment insurance (and #basicincome contributions) from employers of #digitallabor.
-
We might #tax close to the edge of harm. Watts and water at data centers (favoring harder-to-meter #decentralized #AI). Collect unemployment insurance (and #basicincome contributions) from employers of #digitallabor.
-
We might #tax close to the edge of harm. Watts and water at data centers (favoring harder-to-meter #decentralized #AI). Collect unemployment insurance (and #basicincome contributions) from employers of #digitallabor.
-
📄 What if we viewed digital economies not just as systems, but as labor-atories - sites of active class struggle and experimentation? In his new #wjds paper, Rafael Grohmann (@uoft) explores how digital labor in Latin America reflects this dynamic.
➡️ https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.1.6
#research #socialscience #work #DigitalLabor #DigitalEconomies #PlatformWork #LatinAmerica #GlobalSouth #DigitalSovereignty #AI #DataColonialism #TechGovernance #WorkerOrganizing
@DAIR @towardsfairwork -
📄 What if we viewed digital economies not just as systems, but as labor-atories - sites of active class struggle and experimentation? In his new #wjds paper, Rafael Grohmann (@uoft) explores how digital labor in Latin America reflects this dynamic.
➡️ https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.1.6
#research #socialscience #work #DigitalLabor #DigitalEconomies #PlatformWork #LatinAmerica #GlobalSouth #DigitalSovereignty #AI #DataColonialism #TechGovernance #WorkerOrganizing
@DAIR @towardsfairwork -
📄 What if we viewed digital economies not just as systems, but as labor-atories - sites of active class struggle and experimentation? In his new #wjds paper, Rafael Grohmann (@uoft) explores how digital labor in Latin America reflects this dynamic.
➡️ https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.1.6
#research #socialscience #work #DigitalLabor #DigitalEconomies #PlatformWork #LatinAmerica #GlobalSouth #DigitalSovereignty #AI #DataColonialism #TechGovernance #WorkerOrganizing
@DAIR @towardsfairwork -
📄 What if we viewed digital economies not just as systems, but as labor-atories - sites of active class struggle and experimentation? In his new #wjds paper, Rafael Grohmann (@uoft) explores how digital labor in Latin America reflects this dynamic.
➡️ https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.1.6
#research #socialscience #work #DigitalLabor #DigitalEconomies #PlatformWork #LatinAmerica #GlobalSouth #DigitalSovereignty #AI #DataColonialism #TechGovernance #WorkerOrganizing
@DAIR @towardsfairwork -
📄 What if we viewed digital economies not just as systems, but as labor-atories - sites of active class struggle and experimentation? In his new #wjds paper, Rafael Grohmann (@uoft) explores how digital labor in Latin America reflects this dynamic.
➡️ https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.1.6
#research #socialscience #work #DigitalLabor #DigitalEconomies #PlatformWork #LatinAmerica #GlobalSouth #DigitalSovereignty #AI #DataColonialism #TechGovernance #WorkerOrganizing
@DAIR @towardsfairwork -
UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASHAs part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITYBy default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOIDIf I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASEDFrom what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUEIn print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement
-
UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASHAs part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITYBy default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOIDIf I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASEDFrom what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUEIn print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement
-
UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASHAs part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITYBy default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOIDIf I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASEDFrom what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUEIn print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement
-
UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASHAs part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITYBy default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOIDIf I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASEDFrom what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUEIn print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement
-
UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASHAs part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITYBy default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOIDIf I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASEDFrom what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUEIn print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement
-
Salesforce Launches Agentforce for HR Service to Make Employee Support Easy for Everyone
#Salesforce #Agentforce #AI AIagents #HRTech #EmployeeExperience #HRAutomation #FutureOfWork #DigitalLabor #ServiceCloud #EnterpriseAI
-
Salesforce Launches Agentforce for HR Service to Make Employee Support Easy for Everyone
#Salesforce #Agentforce #AI AIagents #HRTech #EmployeeExperience #HRAutomation #FutureOfWork #DigitalLabor #ServiceCloud #EnterpriseAI
-
Salesforce Launches Agentforce for HR Service to Make Employee Support Easy for Everyone
#Salesforce #Agentforce #AI AIagents #HRTech #EmployeeExperience #HRAutomation #FutureOfWork #DigitalLabor #ServiceCloud #EnterpriseAI
-
Salesforce Launches Agentforce for HR Service to Make Employee Support Easy for Everyone
#Salesforce #Agentforce #AI AIagents #HRTech #EmployeeExperience #HRAutomation #FutureOfWork #DigitalLabor #ServiceCloud #EnterpriseAI