Does the UK Really Think it Can Police the Internet?

Leave a comment
Current affairs
Sajid Javid, UK Home Secretary. Credit: Foreign Office via Flickr/CC BY 2.0.

A school playground in England, 1997. I am 12 years old. I am walking towards the entrance where my mother is waiting to drive me home. I am giddy with excitement during the journey back. Tonight is the night that I’m finally going to get it.

I barely look up as I eat my dinner, shoveling it into my mouth as quickly as I possibly can. As soon as the knife and fork hit the empty plate, I’m rushing upstairs to the computer. I sit in front of the glow of the Windows 95 boot screen until the familiar start-up sound plays. A few clicks later, I’m listening to the screeching and hissing of the modem as I connect to the Internet.

“Welcome to AOL,” Joanna Lumley chirps.

I fire up a program which I spent most of the previous Sunday downloading. It’s a newsreader: an application that connects to Usenet, a distributed discussion system. I press the “Connect” button. I navigate to alt.engr.explosives, where yesterday somebody asked the question as to where they could find The Anarchist’s Cookbook, a fabled, possibly banned, tome of all sorts of forbidden knowledge. Last night’s reply was a pointer to an File Transfer Protocol (FTP) server, of which I copy the IP address, username and password.

I open up another program and paste in the credentials. I hit the button with the lightning bolt on it. It works. I’m in. I navigate through the file system of another computer somewhere in the world. There it is. A text file containing the book that has been elevated to legendary status through conversations at school. I transfer the file to our home computer and disconnect from the FTP server and from Usenet. I look over my shoulder. I look out of the window. I open the file in Notepad and rapidly scroll through the table of contents.

Credit card fraud, picking master locks, making thermite bombs, landmines, mixing napalm, black powder, doing telephone phreaking, constructing pipe grenades. It’s all here. I break out into a cold sweat imagining the knock on the door. I close the text file, delete it and turn off the computer. Can the police recover deleted files from hard drives?

Going live

At 1:40 p.m. on Friday 15th March, a man opens Facebook on his phone, taps the camera icon in the top left corner, and then taps “Go Live”. He shares the link with a number of people. Shortly after the video starts, footage from a head-mounted camera depicts the man getting out of his car, approaching a mosque, loading a shotgun scrawled with the names of figures that were participants in major conflicts with Islamic armies throughout history, and then opening fire indiscriminately at innocent worshippers. Seventeen minutes later the live broadcast stops. Within 24 hours, there are 1.5 million upload attempts of the video on Facebook alone. It is unknown how widely shared the video was on other platforms.

The Christchurch shootings, in which 50 people were killed and another 50 were injured, were the worst that New Zealand has seen in recent times. Most notable was the role that technology – especially social media – played in the viral spread of the recorded footage of the incident. In the weeks following the attack, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube struggled to detect and remove copies of the video posted on their websites. YouTube’s chief product officer, Neal Mohan, noted that it “was a tragedy that was almost designed for the purpose of going viral.” He admitted that the platforms themselves do not have the necessary technology to curb the spread of harmful material. “This incident has shown that, especially in the case of more viral videos like this one, there’s more work to be done,” he said.

Offensive content has existed since the early days of the Internet. My 12 year old self was able to get his hands on a book of questionable legality. However, being an inquisitive computer geek allowed me to jump through the knowledge hoops of understanding dial-up modems, newsgroups and FTP transfers. The barrier of entry to questionable material back then was high: the Internet of the 1990s was still the realm of the enthusiast, and the means in which to find hidden secrets was obscure and technical. I wouldn’t expect the people that post in my local town’s Facebook group to have been able to stumble across that book during the same era. However, I’m sure that some of those same people were exposed to the Christchurch shooting video via shares from people within their social network and via the algorithm that controls the news feed. I’m also sure that if they had the desire to find that video, it would only be a few simple searches away.

It is easier than ever to create, share, and find content online. Search engines are unbelievably good at finding that article that you couldn’t quite remember the title of. Social networks ingest photos and videos at a dramatic rate and distribute them to family, friends and strangers. We have a fast global Internet infrastructure that allows a video to be live streamed from a mobile phone in New Zealand and watched all around the world instantaneously. For the majority of harmless Internet usage, this is a boon. But with information – both good and bad – so readily available, have we reached a tipping point for more regulation?

Platform versus publisher

Historically, social media platforms have defended the presence of harmful material on their websites by reasoning that it wasn’t their job to police what their users were able to share or find. It could be argued that this attitude is in line with the bohemian and techno-utopian Californian Ideology, with its roots in the writings of Stewart Brand, editor of the Whole Earth Catalog. The publication is famous for the line on the back cover of its final issue that Steve Jobs quoted during his 2005 Stanford commencement address: “Stay hungry. Stay foolish.”  Our social platforms have certainly been hungry for growth, and they’ve most certainly been foolish.

The Californian Ideology is rooted in “cybernetics, free market economics and counter-culture libertarianism” and upholds a belief that the Internet is beyond the control of the state. Twenty-five years ago, limited bandwidth and the above-average technical literacy required to connect and find information meant that one could feasibly see the ideology as an achievable utopia: a space for a certain type of technically literate intellectual, built by the same people that were consuming it. An early filter bubble, if you will. However, we cannot deny that what we consider to be the Internet today is a vastly different place.

In the early days of decentralized content, finding a webpage was more of an action of stumbling rather than calculated steps, and the creation of content required learning HTML and paying for a hosting provider. Today is different. For most, the predominant experience of the Internet is via social platforms that have been built on top of the scaffolding of the Web and are run by companies that profit from the engagement of their users. Given that the demographics and intentions of today’s social platform users are so varied, there are cases being made that content produced and shared should be subject to stricter laws and tighter controls. The platform versus publisher argument has never been more relevant.

But what do we mean by “platform” and “publisher”? As an example of a platform, consider a telecoms company that provides a landline telephone service. The company is responsible for the quality of the platform, but is not liable for any of the content disclosed during phone calls between individuals. They are simply supplying the infrastructure. A hypothetical call between two terrorists to agree on a target for a terror attack would place clear blame for the criminal activity on the participants, but not on the telecoms network.

Now consider a traditional publisher, such as a newspaper. A newspaper is often a for-profit organization where the content of the publication is created and curated by salaried staff. Hence if a newspaper were to publish material that was considered harmful, libelous or slanderous, then there are existing laws in place to hold the newspaper accountable, regardless of the author.

Given that YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram are the most popular sites in a majority of the world, it follows that the predominant experience of the Internet for the many is now via content shared on platforms that allow anyone, anywhere to easily publish and distribute content. The argument that these platforms should invest more time into regulating their content as if they were a publisher, rather than a platform, grows ever stronger.

The rise of legislation

Flowers at the Christchurch mosque shooting memorial. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

In the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings, governments began to prepare their responses. Australia almost immediately proposed legislation that would make it “a criminal offense to not remove harmful material expeditiously”. Failure to do so would be punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment or fines of up to 10% of the platform’s annual revenue. If the bill passes and becomes law, then social media platforms would also need to make the Australian Federal Police aware of any stream of “abhorrent violent conduct” that is happening in Australia, or to face a fine of nearly $1 million Australian dollars.

Recently, the UK has gone one step further and has published the Online Harms White Paper. Similar to the Australian bill, the UK government points the finger of blame at the social networks for enabling the sharing of the video of the Christchurch shootings, but it casts a wider – and arguably more ambiguous – net with the categories of content that it wants to hold the tech giants responsible for. To name just a few examples, it wishes for them to be accountable for all illegal and unacceptable content, the mechanisms in which terrorist groups and gangs recruit, and also for harassment and bullying.

It plans to police this behavior by setting up a new regulatory body for the Internet, similar to how Ofcom regulates UK TV, radio and telecommunications services. This independent body would create and enforce a statutory “duty of care” that the social networks will have to show that they are meeting, both by working with law enforcement agencies to prosecute those engaged in illegal activity and also by providing annual transparency reports. If the independent body finds that any companies are in breach of the duty of care, then charges can be levied. These range from issuing fines of up to 10% of annual revenue and even being able to impose liability and therefore criminal charges on senior management.

The unveiling of the document by Home Secretary Sajid Javid was done so amidst strong posturing. “I said in September, I warned the web giants. I told them that keeping our children safe is my number one priority as Home Secretary,” he stated. “I warned you. And you did not do enough. So it’s no longer a matter of choice. It’s time for you to protect the users and give them the protection they deserve, and I will accept nothing else.”

How much the web giants have already listened to Mr. Javid, despite his insistence, is unknown. However, the white paper is causing a stir.

The world reacts

The ambitions of the UK government are bold. They want the UK “to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business.” Given the live streaming of the Christchurch massacre, and the backlash against graphic self-harm imagery on Instagram after the death of Molly Russell, one can at least sympathize with their good intention. Writing in The Guardian, John Naughton is supportive of the motion, stating that “since the mid-1990s, internet companies have been absolved from liability – by Section 230 of the 1996 US Telecommunications Act and to some extent by the EU’s e-commerce directive – for the damage that their platforms do.”

However, this positive reaction is in the vocal minority. It has been argued that the white paper highlights how those in positions of political power understand little about the realities of the Internet and technology. A contrasting editorial in The Guardian argues that with the widespread use of the Internet we have created a space that is subject to all of the existing problems that society already has. “No one doubts the harm done by child sexual abuse or terrorist propaganda online, but these things are already illegal. The difficulty there is enforcement, which the white paper does nothing to address.”

Algorithms and artificial intelligence have an extremely long way to go before they can be trusted to automatically censor content online. The traditional “cease and desist” model does not work when content is produced at such a rapid rate. Additionally, without careful development, software can be biased and even racist, so how can we guarantee that automated means will censor fairly, and is it ethical for companies themselves to decide what is and isn’t allowed to be shared?

“Gentleman” by SL.

To police content automatically, we need to know what is and isn’t acceptable. It has been noted that the word ‘harm’ isn’t actually defined in the paper, even though it is in the title. In the absence of an exact definition, the paper instead uses a variety of examples to make its case, such as the spreading of disinformation and in individuals promoting gang culture. However, some of these are entirely subjective: who makes the decision on what is classed as “disinformation” and “gang culture”? Apart from the obvious threat to free speech, it highlights the need for humans to very much be part of the process of classifying content. Is it always possible to correctly automatically classify a UK drill video from a promotion of gang culture? What about the difference between legitimate fake news and satire? Even humans struggle with this problem.

The reality of using humans as screens for harmful content is not only problematic in terms of potential error and the sheer amount of material needing classified. It also exposes humans to real harm. As Casey Newton wrote in The Verge, employees at Cognizant in Phoenix, Arizona, are contracted by Facebook to moderate posts that have been flagged by users as offensive. This subjects employees to videos of terrorist executions, gang murders, bestiality and violence. Exposing workers to extreme content daily is damaging. Staff help to cope by speaking to visiting counselors and have access to a hotline, but employees are reported to have turned to sex, drugs and offensive jokes in order to manage.

So how is the UK government expecting its white paper to be implemented? It highlights that it has already done some work with the social networks to curb online grooming of minors, however this was little more than a two-day hackathon hosted in the US. Forming an independent regulatory body, defining what harmful content is and drafting a duty of care, and staffing the effort with enough people to make a meaningful difference is no small feat. Does the Home Secretary really know the extent of what he is getting into?

Is pivoting platforms the answer?

Mark Zuckerberg F8 2018. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

As mentioned previously, perhaps it is the case that social networks will always be full of bad actors and harmful content because they are merely a reflection of the society that uses them. Policing that content will always be a losing battle, so in order to win the war, the networks must develop a different strategy. As Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein write in Wired, “Like the communications innovations before it—the printing press, the telephone, the internet itself—Facebook is a revolutionary tool. But human nature has stayed the same.”

Last month, Mark Zuckerberg wrote that Facebook will be pivoting the service towards a privacy-focused model, based on his hypothesis that the “future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won’t stick around forever.”

As Benedict Evans writes, this pivot is trying to change the platform so that the present issues become irrelevant. He likens this pivot to how Microsoft had to deal with the threat of malware when it opened up Microsoft Office to be a development platform. Macros, which were small user-written programs, could be embedded inside of Office documents and were exploited to create viruses that could automatically replicate themselves to everyone in a user’s email address book. Although the intentions of macros were to save users time on performing repetitive tasks, the 1999 “Melissa” virus managed to infect the Pentagon, and was reported to have caused $1.1 billon of damage worldwide. Evans argues that Facebook is now too open in the same way that Microsoft Office was too open, and the solution is to make it more closed. “Russians can’t go viral in your newsfeed if there is no newsfeed. ‘Researchers’ can’t scrape your data if Facebook doesn’t have your data,” he writes.

It could be argued that the UK’s response, albeit with good intention, is way behind the curve. If Facebook and other social platforms decide to pivot towards private, encrypted messaging, then it is unclear how the proposals will be enforced. In fact, the white paper states that “any requirements to scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content will not apply to private channels. We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services.”

Those that strongly oppose the white paper, such as Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, and Matthew Lesh, head of research at the Adam Smith Institute, have spoken out against it. After all, is it really possible to censor websites that are not social networks, such as “public discussion forums, messaging services and search engines” without violating existing rights? Freedom of speech campaigners Article 19 also oppose the motion, saying that “such actions could violate individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy.”

However, with the social networks in the firing line beginning to pivot towards private messaging channels, we may in turn find that the white paper becomes largely irrelevant if it is to eventually become law. The UK Government’s Online Harms White Paper is currently under open consultation. Anyone is able to respond to it online, via email, or in writing until the 1st July.

I suggest that you do so.

The Rebellion Against China’s 996 Culture

Leave a comment
Current affairs
Jack Ma, co-founder and executive chairman of Alibaba Group. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

“To be able to work 996 is a huge blessing. If you want to join Alibaba, you need to be prepared to work twelve hours a day, otherwise why even bother joining.”

Jack Ma

996.

That terminology means 9AM to 9PM, 6 days a week. A 72 hour work week with little time for much else. Once sleeping and commuting to the office is accounted for, one might wonder how ambitious tech workers fit in the rest of their lives. Is this the price it takes to get ahead in the booming Chinese economy, or is this a symptom of a hustle culture that has gotten way out of hand?

Nobody can doubt that Jack Ma is successful. As the co-founder of Alibaba, one of the world’s largest e-commerce businesses, and with an estimated net worth of around $40 billion US Dollars, Ma often makes lists of the world’s most powerful people. However, his recent comments on the company’s WeChat account about 996 working culture, which is becoming increasingly prevalent in China, have sparked outrage.

Ma states that “many companies and many people don’t have the opportunity to work 996. If you don’t work 996 when you are young, when can you ever work 996? In this world, everyone wants success, wants a nice life, wants to be respected. Let me ask everyone, if you don’t put out more time and energy than others, how can you achieve the success you want?”

Ma isn’t the only notable businessman advocating for long hours. A reportedly leaked email from JD.com, another Chinese e-commerce company, noted that the employees considered to be underperforming are staff that don’t keep “fighting” to do more work “regardless of performance, position, tenure, personal well-being issues or family reasons”. Youzan, a Hong Kong-listed e-commerce giant was reported to have demanded that employees also follow the 996 routine at its end of year gala event. Their CEO, Bai Ya, then defended these comments on the grounds that it would expose more people to the company’s culture and help people truly decide whether they want to work there.

Online protests

The 996.ICU website. Screenshot taken at time of writing.

Recently a website went live at 996.ICU, believed to have been created by protesting Chinese tech workers. The website is hosted on Github and has been created by an anonymous user that joined the site on March 25th 2019.

The name “996.ICU” refers to the phrase “work by 996, sick in Intensive Care Unit”, which succinctly describes how the 72 hour a week working culture touted by the Chinese tech giants as the recipe for success is anything but; it’s a recipe for burnout and serious health problems.

At the time of writing, the repository on Github currently has over 214,000 stars. Stars are user-generated “favorites” that serve as a measure of popularity of a given project. In comparison, the JavaScript framework React, the most popular way of building the UI of web applications today, has only 126,000 stars. TensorFlow, the popular open source deep learning framework maintained by Google has 125,000 stars. The 996.ICU project is believed to be the most starred project on Github today.

The website itself highlights that Chinese labor laws state that no more than 8 hours of work a day and no more than 44 hours of work per week are considered legal in a standard contract, and that it is illegal to not offer additional compensation via overtime for those workers that clock up more hours than the legal maximum. The website also claims that although it is a recent phenomena that notable companies have made public statements about the existence of 996 culture, it has long been a secret practiced in many Chinese companies.

There is further information stored in files the Github repository itself. Contributions are accepted for a list of companies that are practicing 996 working hours along with the time it was believed to have begun. It also includes links to evidence of these practices. The list currently contains 110 companies and features globally known names such as Huawei, Alibaba, Baidu and Youzan. Provided evidence ranges from screenshots of “voluntary struggle” agreements from Huawei through to posts from workers on Kanzhun, the Chinese equivalent to Glassdoor.

A contributor to the 996.ICU repository has created a new software license for others to include in their open source projects. It explicitly forbids companies that are not complying with all applicable labor laws and regulations from using that software. There have been requests to add it to projects such as Redis, React and Vue. It has already been added to a whole host of other projects, as noted by 996.ICU’s “awesomelist”.

Controversy has been amplified by reports that the protest website has been blocked by the web browsers of the Chinese technology companies that are under scrutiny. The popular instant messaging program WeChat refuses to open links to the webpage. Browsers such as Tencent’s QQ, Qihoo’s 360 and the native browser of Xiaomi smartphones restrict user access to the site. QQ displays a pop-up message that tells users that the protest page is a “malicious site”. 360 browser blocks the site and displays a message that it “contains illegal information”. Similar messages are displayed by Xiaomi’s browser.

This could suggest that Chinese technology companies are beginning to take the law into their own hands. Not only are they publicly declaring that their culture involves working hours that are deemed illegal by Chinese law, they are deciding to apply their own censorship to websites that they believe to be harmful to their reputation.

How long has 996 been going on for?

In the initial technology start-up boom era of the early 2000s, many companies embraced a culture of working around the clock in order to claim first-mover advantage on their competitors. This period gave birth to Chinese startups that are now some of the most valuable in the world, such as Tencent and Alibaba. Given the astounding growth of these companies, many have since adapted a relentless work culture in the hope that they too can replicate their success.

However, as Bloomberg reports, a commenter on Jack Ma’s Weibo post stated that “the bosses do 996 because they’re working for themselves and their wealth is growing. We work 996 because we’re exploited without overtime compensation.” This observation is not unique.

The BBC report on the story of Li Zhepeng, a 25-year old that moved to Shanghai with the hope to jump start his career. However, the reality was starkly different: he had to commute ninety minutes each way to the outer suburbs, where office space is cheaper, in order to work 12 hour days posting descriptions of items for sale on an e-commerce website. As well as being expected to work on Sundays, he took home ¥3,500 a month, equivalent to $560.

Reports of 996 culture also extend beyond technology companies. Jared Turner, a bakery owner in Shanghai, reports on Quora that when he started his bakery he scheduled shifts for workers to be 5 days a week, only to find that virtually all full-time employees had another part-time job on the side. The key difference here is that the bakery workers chose to work 996. “Chinese people work hard,” he states.

Motivation for an individual to work 996 is varied. Some are in desperate need of the money. Some know that in order to get ahead in their career they need to dedicate themselves to their job at the expense of their outside lives. Some have no choice but to comply to the culture of the company that they work for, lest they lose their jobs.

But does 996 get more done?

On the surface, working 996 is about companies capitalizing on as many hours of the week as possible in order to make progress. It utilizes sheer brute force to beat the competition and to capture a market before the competition. However, knowledge work such as computer programming is unlike factory work: it is not a series of repetitive tasks that can be done by anyone as long as they can stay awake and crank the handle.

Instead, like in many other creative pursuits such as mathematics, writing or designing, a human’s output on a given task depends on many different factors. Some of these key variables include the quality of the working environment, worker’s exposure to stress and the ability to frequently rest well. Sometimes programmers can butt their heads against a problem that they cannot solve for hours, only for the solution to come to them the next morning after having a good night’s sleep.

Working endlessly to a punishing schedule can make an individual less effective than if they were fewer less hours in a calmer manner. Tired employees can do sloppy work and introduce bugs that cause downtime and even more effort to fix. Some of the greatest minds in history – those that have produced defining works for humanity – have vouched for shorter work days in order for them to be at their creative peak. While it is true that Darwin, Poincare and Thomas Mann are geniuses with superior intellectual abilities, they confined their creative output to daily blocks of 3-4 hours, and filled the rest of their days with other activities.

Thus the greatest waste of 996 culture is that it is symbolic overwork that is detrimental to the mental and physical wellbeing of staff. It does not guarantee that those staff are producing better work than their peers who are working saner schedules. This therefore deprives people of their free time and makes families and relationships suffer, for no extra pay and no extra output. It is akin to cultural imprisonment, where staff are either pretending to look busy until it is acceptable to leave the office, or they are literally working themselves to death.

Karōshi

Tokyo rush hour. Credit: Wikipedia.

A friend of mine moved to Japan to begin his career after finishing his Ph.D. He once made the observation that if you visited the train station in my hometown of Brighton, UK at midnight on a Friday, it would be full of people who are traveling home from a night out. In comparison, the platforms of Tokyo train stations at the same time of the week are full of suited employees on their way home from work.

Overwork culture is not new, and it is not a primarily Chinese problem. Japan has long suffered from this issue. Cultural phenomena such as being unable to leave work until one’s boss leaves and regularly clocking more than 80 hours of overtime a month have been reported for decades. In fact, this extreme overwork has caused deaths in seemingly otherwise healthy individuals, and it even has a term: karōshi. Translated to mean “overwork death”, the first case is attributed to a 29 year old male in 1969, with the phrase becoming more widely known in 1978 as multiple individuals died from overwork-related strokes or heart attacks.

The Japanese bubble economy of the 1980s, which brought frantic economic activity, elevated karōshi to national attention with reports of several notable business executives dying suddenly without any previous signs of illness. Given the current Chinese technology boom, it is no wonder to see that working 996 can result in a trip to the ICU.

However, some young Chinese workers are refusing to confirm to the harmful cultural norm. Instead of suffering in silence, they are beginning to speak up or show their disagreement by finding work elsewhere. Li Zhepeng, the e-commerce worker that we mentioned earlier, decided to switch to a different job and then be up front about his working conditions. He spoke candidly with his manager to set a more manageable workload and also to ensure that he was able to occasionally leave earlier. She agreed. His colleagues noted that he was their idol for having the bravery for speaking up.

A 955 future

The 996.ICU Github repository also links to another list of companies: those that are reported to be working a saner 9AM to 5PM, 5 days a week schedule: known as 955. A majority of the companies listed are of Western origin, such as eBay, Oracle, Intel and Apple. With the anti-996 movement creating cultural pressure for non-conforming companies to change their ways, and with younger workers casting their vote for their preference with their feet, we can only hope that those that are employed in 996 workplaces will find the support to challenge those that are setting the agenda.

Although Western technology firms are by no means perfect, there are numerous pro-worker cultural movements that have gained a significant voice. Instead of sitting around until our bosses leave, we are beginning to celebrate bosses that leave loudly. At the time of writing, Working Nomads lists over 10,000 highly skilled jobs that can be done remotely and flexibly from a desk anywhere in the world. Technology companies are beginning to realize that a fridge full of Diet Coke and chocolate is less important than being able to work flexible hours. Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson’s latest book It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work is a #1 Amazon bestseller.

Work should support and enable lives, rather than claim them. Conditions in Chinese technology companies, as they have done in other countries, will eventually change, as current practices are unsustainable. In August 2018, two Chinese technology founders died in circumstances believed to be related to high-pressure working environments. But, regardless of the bad press, has 996 culture got Silicon Valley spooked?

Many see 996 culture as a threat to Western economies. However, by no means should we cave in to these practices. Instead, we should focus on strategy and efficiency of our workforce. Companies should strive to create the conditions that allow their staff and products to succeed without being shackled to their desks. We should clear out meaningless meetings. We should allow for focussed deep work that moves the needle. We should give staff the flexibility they need to be their most productive. We should work hard, but most importantly, we should go home. That’s how we win the marathon.

The Unhappy Middle of the Gig Economy

Leave a comment
Current affairs
An eclectically decorated Uber ride in San Francisco. Credit: Travis Wise via Flickr/CC BY 2.0

Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Deliveroo. Words that are now part of our everyday lexicon.

We can’t deny that the gig economy has changed the world. In fact, I find it hard to remember when I didn’t see hundreds of delivery scooters zipping around the city near our office. Nor do I easily recall when it was unusual to see somebody happily getting into an unmarked car driven by someone they didn’t know. From Brighton to London to San Francisco, our cities are bisected twenty-four hours a day by the journeys of bicycle couriers, delivery mopeds and taxi drivers.

I previously wrote that the explosion of the gig economy over the last decade has been primarily fueled by the money of venture capitalists (VCs) and the software written by skilled and highly compensated software engineers. There is a notable dichotomy between the job security and income of those that are creating this new economy and that of the gig workers that are generating the revenue, one delivery and cab ride at a time.

In the race to rapidly grow and float the companies that supply gig work, huge net losses are generated, signifying high risk for future investors and workers. The gig economy platforms such as Lyft and Uber, in their sprint for market dominance, dramatically undercut traditional companies such as local taxi and courier firms.

However, this furious competition is excellent for the consumer, who gets cheaper, faster and more technologically advanced services. It also creates new unicorns that grow and become immensely valuable for their founders and staff. The VCs and investors that propelled their growth get significant return on their money.

But what becomes of the human beings that generate revenue by driving and biking day and night, come rain or shine? Are the workers an afterthought in this economy? One could argue that the drawbacks of gig work far outweigh the benefits. There is no job security. There is the stress of unpredictable income. There is a reliance on algorithms to get work. Ratings systems cast their judgement.

If labor laws change and these companies cannot operate like they currently do, or if cities and countries ban them altogether, gig workers may quickly find themselves out of a job with no safety net. Comparatively, the VCs expose themselves to little risk through their diverse portfolios. The software engineers can easily find high paying jobs elsewhere in today’s buoyant job market.

The winners at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum

We all know that gig workers want better conditions. There have been protests and strikes around the world for many years. A common – and privileged – response to complaints from gig workers over their conditions is that if they didn’t like their jobs, then nobody is forcing them to do them. However, this misses important nuances about the diverse demographic that deliver your food and drive you to the airport.

We should partition those that are working in the gig economy into groups based on their motivation. A 2015 analysis published by Uber’s Head of Policy Research found that 51% of drivers work 1-15 hours a week, 30% work 16-34 hours, 12% work 35-49 hours and 7% work more than 50 hours. It could therefore be observed that a comparably small proportion of Uber drivers are responsible for a majority of rides.

Given that a worker chooses how many hours to drive, we can interpret that choice as an indicator of their needs. Considering the gig economy more broadly than cabs and deliveries, the Pew Research Center reported that 56% of surveyed workers were financially reliant on gig work versus 42% that could live comfortably without the income. Given that 57 million people in the U.S. alone are taking part in the gig economy, 23 million people are using it to earn supplemental income are clearly reaping the reward from the existence of additional, flexible work at the press of a button.

Additionally, there have been studies that show that, for some, gig work can be much better than the available alternatives. A 2018 study of Uber drivers in the United Kingdom showed that the vast majority of the UK’s drivers are male immigrants primarily drawn from the bottom half of the London income distribution. Most of these workers moved into the gig economy from permanent part- or full-time jobs and reported higher life satisfaction. Although the drivers are still in a lower income bracket, many are earning more money through Uber than they were before and were able to do so on their terms. A similar U.S-based study in 2017 reported that driving for Uber gave flexibility unmatched by other working arrangements and often greater pay.

One could posit that these two groups are at the higher end and lower end of the income distribution respectively. Those that are non-reliant and use it for supplemental income are comparatively well-off. Those that find it offers better flexibility and pay than other alternatives are presumably in a lower socioeconomic bracket and have less specialized and transferable skills, meaning that gig work is the best overall option for their income and happiness.

The unhappy middle

Anti-ridesharing protests in Portland, 2015. Credit: Aaron Parecki via Flickr/CC BY 2.0

But, regardless of those that benefit from being able to open an app, jump in their vehicle and immediately earn money, the rapid global proliferation of gig work has created widespread friction and controversy. From protests to sexual harassment to mental health issues to suicides, rarely a week has gone by without a media furore. Although our groups above may report some satisfaction with their arrangement, there are clearly many problems, and workers are starting to take action.

The reality of gig economy conditions – often giving workers less rights, equality and pay – has inspired grassroots action through organizations such as the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB). Their stance on the gig economy is that it bogusly classes individuals as “independent contractors” in order to deprive them of employment rights. Local branches of the IWGB, such as the Bristol Couriers Network have organized targeted strikes against particular gig economy platforms such as Deliveroo, demanding minimum payment guarantees and a recruitment freeze to ensure that there is enough work for couriers to have a dependable income.

There is a parallel with the controversy over so-called zero-hours contracts in the UK. Also known as casual contracts, the employee is on call to work when the company needs them. They do not necessarily have to be given any work by the company, and do not have to work when asked. On the surface, this seems like a similar situation to those that are doing gig work: it is flexible work that is there for them to take or leave.

However, the Trades Union Congress argues that these contracts exploit workers, stating that the flexibility that they offer is only good for employers and not for the employees. Increasingly unstable economic conditions have seen workplaces replace traditional full-time or part-time staff with zero-hours contracts meaning that staff cannot guarantee their income. It is reported that 2.4% of the working population in the UK are working zero-hours contracts, but two-thirds of them would prefer fixed hours.

According to the UK Government, zero-hours contracts, despite offering unpredictable hours and therefore unpredictable income, do have to ensure that the National Minimum Wage is paid and that workers are entitled to statutory annual leave. In comparison, one could reason that gig work is even less secure, given that there is no guarantee of any income due to the casual nature of the arrangement, and that the pool of available work is regulated by two uncontrollable forces: the amount of demand for the services and the number of other workers competing for jobs at any particular time.

Have we seen this before?

There have been numerous times in history in which workers were flocking to jobs with poor conditions. One notable period was the Industrial Revolution. “Employers could set wages as low as they wanted because people were willing to work as long as they got paid,” notes Ankur Poddar. Poor conditions for workers led to backlash, protests and attempts at unionization.

“Labor Unions formed because workers finally wanted to put a stop to long hours with little pay. They demanded more pay and fairer treatment. They did not want children to work in factories because of the danger involved. Labor unions organized strikes and protests. However, as more immigrants came to the United States, more workers became available. These workers were willing to work, even if others were not because of unfair treatment. This lessened the effect of the labor unions since businesses had no shortage of workers. This is why most labor unions were unsuccessful.”

Does that sound familiar? Perhaps we find ourselves in another transformational period for our economy and the nature of work. The conditions during the Industrial Revolution gave birth to labor laws that underpin traditional employment today. The series of Factory Acts passed in the 1800s in the UK limited the minimum age of workers, the maximum amount of hours per day that they were legally allowed to work, and limited weekend working hours.

In Lee Fang’s article for The Intercept, he argues that the race for Lyft, Uber and their siblings to IPO is partly driven by investors and founders wanting to cash out at the highest possible valuation before labor laws catch up with them and break the model that has given them their multi billion dollar valuations. If Lyft really do lose $1.50 per ride, how much would they lose if they had to provide securities and benefits for their workers in line with those in permanent employment? In fact, when Uber filed for IPO this week their S-1 filing stated that “our business would be adversely affected if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors.”

The rise and fall of medallions

Licensed NYC yellow taxis. Credit: Jim Pennucci via Flickr/CC BY 2.0.

Despite our rebellious impulse to root for the underdog, our underdogs have now become the dominant players in the market. For all of our hatred of monopolies, the antiquated NYC taxi medallion system that Uber and Lyft has disrupted did hold a number of benefits for those that worked within it.

In 1937, NYC officials decided that owning or leasing a licensed taxi medallion – displayed on the hood of every working taxi – was legally required in order to operate as a driver in the city. The medallion system was installed in response to the chaotic unregulated taxi situation of the early 1930s. The city was flooded with cabs, congestion was rife, and driving was dangerous.

The number of medallions was capped, which in addition to reducing congestion, meant that medallions became very valuable: in 2013 a medallion sold for $1.3 million at auction. Although a taxi driver’s income is moderate, the medallion system ensured that there was predictable income, since people in NYC always want cabs. Purchasing a medallion was an investment, much in the same way that owning a property is. Upon reaching retirement, selling a taxi medallion meant a secure future. However, the disruption to NYC taxis by Uber and Lyft – these legal but unregulated and uncapped taxi companies – has driven down the price of taxi medallions from the 2013 high of $1.3 million to a recent low of $160,000.

A regulated system, despite its flaws, did provide worker security. Now that taxi medallions are not as valuable as they were in the past, yellow cab drivers will have to work out whether in the long term it remains financially viable to keep it, or whether they would be better off driving in the gig economy. According to Uber, the median wage for an UberX driver working a 40 hour week in NYC is $90,766 a year compared to around $30,000 for a yellow cab driver. Assuming medallions continue to decrease in value, then there may be no choice but to switch.

Similar patterns are repeated the world over. The surge and disruption of gig economy work forces those that are currently working in traditional regulated industries to join it. In doing so they subject themselves to less protection from their employer and open themselves up to high risk if they are unable to keep working. If a medallion-holding taxi driver became too sick to continue working ten years ago, selling the medallion would be a reasonable way to exit with dignity. In the present day, our gig driver will have to hope they can find some other means of income.

The potential for a fairer future

Although the outlook of this article could be considered dreary, I believe that within all disruption and chaos comes opportunity. Indeed, there has been a tremendous amount of opportunity for new economies to be created, for companies to thrive, and for millions of workers around the world to find new ways of making an income for themselves and their families. No new and disruptive thing is ever entirely good, but it will, I believe, in the long term, be better for everyone involved; from the customer to the gig worker to the companies themselves.

The question is how we decide to arrive at this better future. Change in the past has come through legislation, such as the Factory Acts of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s and the NYC taxi medallion system in the 1930s. We see similar legislative progress today, albeit at a pace that is probably too slow to make a meaningful difference. I believe that the creators of the gig economy platforms have a choice that can become a differentiator in how they grow their businesses over the next ten years: how can they use their position of power to become a force for good? Rather than relying on legislation to curb and cap them, why can they not lead the way with changes that benefit society?

Gig economy platforms are technology giants employing some of the world’s smartest people. They have global reach and vast, deep data sets describing the world’s lifestyle habits. Given that consumers are happy with the services provided, how can companies begin to turn their minds towards creating the best possible experience for their workers?

Within the last year, major gig economy platforms such as Deliveroo have implemented insurance for their riders. Other platforms are following suit. But I believe there are more fundamental changes that could help workers thrive and thus attract customers to the services that have worker wellbeing in mind.

The EU recently published guidelines on creating trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence (AI) systems. These guidelines seek to ensure that systems support human agency and fundamental rights, that they are be used to enhance positive social change, to increase sustainability and ecological responsibility, and that they should consider the whole range of human abilities in order to ensure non-discrimination and fairness. Gig economy platforms seem rife with opportunities to use AI for good. They could create work that supports families whilst also giving workers a better, safer and more flexible working experience that they could get anywhere else.

Allowing workers to identify as full-time and reliant on their income versus being part-time and earning a supplement could bias gig distribution in favor of those who need the money whilst still supporting the needs of both groups of workers. Additionally, the geographical data available within the system could prevent bicycle couriers from having to ride punishing delivery routes uphill or having to carry challenging and dangerous loads. Instead of fueling a subprime auto loan market, ride-hailing companies could offer better incentives to full-time workers to fund purchasing their own car with competitive loans, or perhaps partner with existing car rental networks to allow people to drive without needing to use their own vehicle.

Why should we wait for legislation to make things better? We as technologists should be trying to address these societal problems ourselves. I’d pay more per ride to ensure that I was properly supporting drivers that are reliant on the income. I’d wait longer for my meal to ensure that an appropriately suitable rider and calm route is chosen. Let’s get to it.