Week 5.doc

Casilli’s  Digital Labor Studies Go Global: Toward a Digital Decolonial Turn

Casilli’s article provides a comprehensive introduction into understanding the types of platforms where the issue of digital labor remains concealed. He argues that the increase in digital economies outsourcing tasks to developing countries have allowed for new global inequalities and proposes to render visible these invisible workings of digital labour. He highlights how pervasive computing and usage of mobile technologies, so accessible to us, have resulted in the failure to recognise invisible digital labour.

He outlines four platform ecosystems: on-demand platforms, microwork platforms, online social platforms and “smart” platforms. Through a brief analysis of these platforms, Casilli exposes the way in which these platforms exploit and continue to exploit human labour, though at differing intensities and visibility.

On-demand Platforms	Customers connect with independent goods/service providers to allocate resources in real-time Issues of insecure working conditions, lack of guarantees and income volatility “Immaterial” labour performed by all users, i.e. data-intensive tasks Insufficient online performance leads to discontinuation of service for all users Perhaps one example that we can all relate to in Singapore is the use of food delivery services like GrabFood / Deliveroo. Even the use of dining reservation apps like Chope can be an example here.
Microwork Platforms	Crowdsourcing services where recruiters are matched with workers to perform small, repetitive, and often unskilled tasks. Human-based computation, obtained via microtasks, bridging the gap between computer processing and human judgment E.g. When we turn on predictive texting function on our smartphones, the accuracy of predicting text in future becomes more accurate. Or facial recognition technology.
Online Social Platforms	Based on communities of producers and consumers exchanging cultural goods Content production vs. active participation I think we have all participated in this one way or another. It would make for an interesting discussion to bring in Finn’s discussions of the gamification of social media here that keeps people coming back. This algorithm that is so embedded and invisible to us has turned life into some sort of a game. For instance, though arguable, Instagram has become a game where users have 24 hours to view one’s Instastory before it disappears. This mechanism keeps people turning on the app multiple times in a day and some of us may fail to realise this time restriction has encouraged us to consume social media in that way.
“Smart” Platforms	Behavioural data produced by connected objects and smart environments enabled by the Internet of Things E.g. Apps-Connect worked with NYP to create a smart floormat where caregivers can monitor the elderly. If the elderly enters a kitchen but does not exit after a period of time, it could indicate he/she has fallen down and send a notification to the caregiver. Perhaps this could be a counter-example to what Casilli refers to those who have chosen to use these technologies as those with high level of agency and self-determination. It would make for an interesting discussion to bring up ethical issues (of vulnerability, of surveillance) here or digital labor issues where caregivers are expected to be on standby 24/7.

 

Finn’s Coding Cow Clicker: The Work of Algorithms

Finn brings up some interesting points that suggest social gaming has continued to blur the lines between play and work (“escapism masquerading as efficiency”), between reality and virtual. He suggests gamification is implicitly used to manipulate the players. Bogost adopts a critical view of gamification where it should be referred to as “exploitationware” for abusing human susceptibility in a capitalist world thereby highlighting their role as “algorithmic culture machines”.

Cow Clicker as a satirical response to the mindless repetition of these social games clearly illustrate how gamification manipulates players. In this video with specific reference to the Cow Clicker game, Bogost talks about how Facebook “brazenly” gives user data to the developers. Even through this example we see how people have contributed to this blurring of distinction between what is real and what is virtual. It is scary. Finn suggests games on social media platforms “demonstrate the power of algorithmic systems to reorder human lives” and I have to agree. It is not just games that does this; the manner in which these social media platforms are built encourages this. On Snapchat/Instastory, for example, you have 24 hours to view your friends’ snaps before they disappear.

Finn also talks about the “interface economy” where algorithms shaping the user interface were adapted to change the way in which we consume things.  Interestingly, Hong’s discussion of the prosumer would add another layer of understanding how this interface economy have also influenced us as a prosumer.

A key question Finn brings up in his paper is: who is motivating these changes between algorithm gamification and the marketplace, and what are we “sharing” in the sharing economy?

• It would be meaningful to root this discussion in a specific context: e.g. Netflix and Bandersnatch – by allowing consumers to affect the fictional character’s decisions in the film, what are we “sharing”?

Finn also suggests we are asking the interface layer to make ethical and cultural decisions on our behalf, highlighting the high level of trust we have invested in such algorithms. E.g. we allow other parties to know where we are through location-dependent services.

Finn also talks about “cloud” as the invisible space in which we exchange information, also rendering invisible the amount of labour that goes into maintaining and operating these clouds. I thought it was utterly disgusting to refer to human beings as “animals” (p133), thereby bringing to mind the question: is our world of software desensitising us to emotions? Is it contributing to a loss of our humanity?

Other key ideas he addresses that I find simply adds on to the discussion of cultural and ethical issues include the idea of moral machinery and artificial artificial intelligence.

 

Hong’s Game Modding, Prosumerism and Neoliberal Labor provides an interesting discussion where the game industry and the act of game modification allows the perpetuation of norms, thereby trapping gamers in a cycle of repeated game modding. Hong aims to understand how neoliberalism restricts and enables one to achieve the goal of the player’s capacity to share power, instead of maximising one’s wealth or rights. He tackles teh question of who benefits from game modding? I thought this point would be interesting to expand upon in class, beyond the context of game moddings – our consumption of the Google Search Engine for example.