#digitallabour — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #digitallabour, aggregated by home.social.
-
The New Pharaohs
The old pharaohs built monuments of stone. The new ones build pyramids of data. -
'Remote robotics, or the digital re-embodiment of labour' - a new article published in Pluto Journals 'Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation' on #ScienceOpen:
🔗 https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/workorgalaboglob.19.2.0010
-
'Remote robotics, or the digital re-embodiment of labour' - a new article published in Pluto Journals 'Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation' on #ScienceOpen:
🔗 https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/workorgalaboglob.19.2.0010
-
'Remote robotics, or the digital re-embodiment of labour' - a new article published in Pluto Journals 'Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation' on #ScienceOpen:
🔗 https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/workorgalaboglob.19.2.0010
-
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK FOR TWELVE YEARS ACROSS FOUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND EARN ZERO EUROS?
May 8, 2025No salary. No contract. No human contact. Just algorithms, silence, and legal dead ends. From Uber Eats to YouTube, from Drivy to Twitch, this is the story of a worker who never stopped — and was never paid. Behind the illusion of flexibility lies a system designed to erase, isolate, and discard. There are no managers to talk to. No offices to visit. No recourse when you’re erased. Don’t Contact YouTube isn’t a cry for help. It’s an appeal to the law. Because recognition won’t come from platforms — it will come from court rulings. Read the full story now.
¯_
DON’T CONTACT YOUTUBEHaving an online activity means relying on partners… who are also online. We depend on social networks that index our content arbitrarily, on software we no longer own but rent monthly, on freelancers scattered across the globe and connected through platforms headquartered abroad. This model, often praised as “modern” or “flexible,” is in reality a legal nightmare. You can’t just grab your coat and go talk to these partners. You can’t write to them. You can’t call them. You can’t even appoint a lawyer: their offices are located outside France, and even when local jurisdiction would be required by law, platforms contractually enforce the jurisdiction of their own country — which already constitutes a violation, notably under Articles L.111-1 and L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code, or European Directive 2011/83/EU.
¯_
JOURNALISTS ALREADY SPOKE OUTFrench journalist Sébastien-Abdelhamid turned it into a running gag on the show On n’est pas des pigeons (France 4). He flew to the United States, spent hours on a plane, just to film himself standing in front of the Facebook or Google headquarters… and being told by a security guard: “You’re not getting in.” Those sequences are a goldmine to understand the problem. These companies behave like mafias: physical gatekeeping, security guards instead of reception staff, no way to access the offices — not even to drop off a resume.
¯_
A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE KIND OF VIOLENCEOnline, this power dynamic becomes invisible. It manifests as a more subtle, insidious form of violence: bots, FAQ pages, contact forms that never get a reply. You don’t give up because you’re lazy, or because you didn’t try. You give up because it is factually impossible to speak to a human being at these companies.
¯_
THE FRENCH STATE IS COMPLICITIn this age of normalized brutality, governments turn a blind eye.
I filed a complaint against the French State. Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code states that the failure to assist a person in danger can apply to anyone — including the State — when aware of an ongoing threat. The lack of action in the face of GAFAM dominance is a failure of duty. These giants rule unchallenged, while everyone else either submits to them… or silently collapses.
¯_
THE LAW REQUIRES CUSTOMER SUPPORTLet’s be clear: every company is legally required to provide customer service. This is a legal obligation under French law. And in professional contexts involving payments or partnerships, the penalties can be even more severe. When your ability to eat depends on an algorithm — and you have no way to appeal — the very notion of “business” becomes a farce.
¯#DigitalLabour #PlatformExploitation #InvisibleWork #JusticeForFreelancers
-
THE ALGORITHM VS. THE HUMAN MIND: A LOSING BATTLE
¯_
NO RECOGNITION FOR THE AUTHORYouTube does not reward consistency, insight, or author reputation. A comment may become a “top comment” for a day, only to vanish the next. There’s no memory, no history of editorial value. The platform doesn’t surface authors who contribute regularly with structured, relevant input. There's no path for authorship to emerge or be noticed. The “like” system favors early commenters — the infamous firsts — who write “first,” “early,” or “30 seconds in” just after a video drops. These are the comments that rise to the top. Readers interact with the text, not the person behind it. This is by design. YouTube wants engagement to stay contained within the content creator’s channel, not spread toward the audience. A well-written comment should not amplify a small creator’s reach — that would disrupt the platform’s control over audience flow.
¯_
USERS WHO’VE STOPPED THINKINGThe algorithm trains people to wait for suggestions. Most users no longer take the initiative to explore or support anyone unless pushed by the system. Even when someone says something exceptional, the response remains cold. The author is just a font — not a presence. A familiar avatar doesn’t trigger curiosity. On these platforms, people follow only the already-famous. Anonymity is devalued by default. Most users would rather post their own comment (that no one will ever read) than reply to others. Interaction is solitary. YouTube, by design, encourages people to think only about themselves.
¯_
ZERO MODERATION FOR SMALL CREATORSSmall creators have no support when it comes to moderation. In low-traffic streams, there's no way to filter harassment or mockery. Trolls can show up just to enjoy someone else's failure — and nothing stops them. Unlike big streamers who can appoint moderators, smaller channels lack both the tools and the visibility to protect themselves. YouTube provides no built-in safety net, even though these creators are often the most exposed.
¯_
EXTERNAL LINKS ARE SABOTAGEDTrying to drive traffic to your own website? In the “About” section, YouTube adds a warning label to every external link: “You’re about to leave YouTube. This site may be unsafe.” It looks like an antivirus alert — not a routine redirect. It scares away casual users. And even if someone knows better, they still have to click again to confirm. That’s not protection — it’s manufactured discouragement. This cheap shot, disguised as safety, serves a single purpose: preventing viewers from leaving the ecosystem. YouTube has no authority to determine what is or isn’t a “safe” site beyond its own platform.
¯_
HUMANS CAN’T OUTPERFORM THE MACHINEAt every level, the human loses. You can’t outsmart an algorithm that filters, sorts, buries. You can’t even decide who you want to support: the system always intervenes. Talent alone isn’t enough. Courage isn’t enough. You need to break through a machine built to elevate the dominant and bury the rest. YouTube claims to be a platform for expression. But what it really offers is a simulated discovery engine — locked down and heavily policed.
¯#YouTubeCritique #AlgorithmicBias #DigitalLabour #IndieCreators #Shadowbanning #ContentModeration #PlatformJustice #AudienceManipulation
-
🙋🥳Oyez braves gens, j'ai une super-nouvelle! L'appel à communications du 6e colloque de notre International Network on Digital Labor (INDL-6) est disponible ici👉https://indl.network Cette année, rendez-vous à Berlin, du 9 au 11 oct. 2023. Deadline pour envoyer vos abstracts: 3 avr. 2023. #futureofwork #platformeconomy #digitallabour #algorithmicmanagement #artificialintelliegence #automation
