CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesEmployment, Labor, and Gender Studies

Entangled Independence: From Labor Rights to Gig "Empowerment" Under the Algorithmic Gaze

Open access
Anjali Anwar, Ira, Garcia, Patricia, Hui, Julie·2024·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3686916
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study offers a critical analysis of how the Indian gig platform, Urban Company (UC), mobilizes the promise of empowerment to assemble, discipline and algorithmically entangle its gig labor force. Much of the scholarship on gig work has described how the (mis)classification of gig workers as independent contractors allows gig corporations to abdicate their employment responsibilities, thereby disentangling the traditional employer-employee relationship. By contrast, UC promises to invest in it's Indian gig workforce, with offerings such as health insurance and financial loans to counter the enduring socio-economic precarity of the Indian labor market. However, through a critical content analysis of UCs' public media, we find that UC's organization of such ''social security'' benefits rests on an insidious system of algorithmic evaluation and classification. Access to benefits is conditional, determined by the platform's algorithmic control mechanisms, which classify workers as worthy or unworthy on a shifting basis. Mobilizing Agre's analysis of business discourses of ''empowered work'', we highlight how UC's algorithmic classification of workers creates a system of ''conditional empowerment.'' This system reflects a critical shift in the labor process, from rights-based labor regimes to a neoliberal social order where individuals must constantly prove their worth.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3686916

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The uberization of data work depends on maintaining a large, on-demand workforce; platforms cultivate expansive labor reserves while BPOs keep workers on the bench to meet fluctuating client demand.

    “The “uberization” of data work depends on maintaining a large, on-demand workforce; platforms cultivate expansive labor reserves [5, 66], while BPOs keep workers “on the bench” to meet fluctuating client demand.”

    From 'The plan is just survival': Data Work in Kenya and the Regime of Entrapment (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The citation is attached to the claim that platforms cultivate expansive labor reserves, not to the subsequent BPO comparison. The Abstract (page unavailable) describes Urban Company assembling and disciplining its gig workforce, but does not say it maintains a large, on-demand labor reserve. Searches for reserve labor, worker pools, and fluctuating demand found no passage in our copy establishing that point. (LLM, conf=0.68)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. [6][6] Ludmila Costhek Abílio. 2023. Uberization: The Periphery as the Future of Work? In Platformization and Informality: Pathways of Change, Alteration, and Transformation. Springer, 139--160. Google Scholar
  2. [8][8] Philip E Agre. 1994. From high tech to human tech: Empowerment, measurement, and social studies of computing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 3 (1994), 167--195. Digital Library Google Scholar
  3. [9][9] Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gupta, and Hannah Appel. 2018. The promise of infrastructure. Duke University Press. Google Scholar
  4. [10][10] Elizabeth Anderson. 2017. Private government. In Private Government. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  5. [11][11] Ira Anjali Anwar, Joyojeet Pal, and Julie Hui. 2021. Watched, but Moving: Platformization of Beauty Work and Its Gendered Mechanisms of Control. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--20. Digital Library Google Scholar
  6. [12][12] Ira Anjali Anwar, Michaelanne Thomas, Kentaro Toyama, and Julie Hui. 2022. Gig Platforms as Faux Infrastructure: A Case Study of Women Beauty Workers in India. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1--25. Digital Library Google Scholar
  7. [13][13] Ira Anjali Anwar and Zothan Mawii. 2022. Platform work and the erosion of community networks in the global south. Interactions 29, 6 (2022), 72--75. Digital Library Google Scholar
  8. [21][21] Eliane Léontine Bucher, Peter Kalum Schou, and Matthias Waldkirch. 2021. Pacifying the algorithm--Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. Organization 28, 1 (2021), 44--67. Crossref Google Scholar
  9. [22][22] Michael Burawoy. 1982. Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. University of Chicago Press. Crossref Google Scholar
  10. [25][25] Julie Yujie Chen and Ping Sun. 2020. Temporal arbitrage, fragmented rush, and opportunistic behaviors: The labor politics of time in the platform economy. New Media & Society 22, 9 (2020), 1561--1579. Crossref Google Scholar
  11. [30][30] Wendy Cukier, Ojelanki Ngwenyama, Robert Bauer, and Catherine Middleton. 2009. A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology: preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis. Information systems journal 19, 2 (2009), 175--196. Google Scholar
  12. [31][31] Anne Daguerre. 2014. New corporate elites and the erosion of the Keynesian social compact. Work, employment and society 28, 2 (2014), 323--334. Google Scholar
  13. [32][32] Valerio De Stefano. 2015. The rise of the just-in-time workforce: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol?y J. 37 (2015), 471. Google Scholar
  14. [33][33] Veena B Dubal. 2017. Wage slave or Entrepreneur?: Contesting the dualism of legal worker identities. California Law Review (2017), 65--123. Google Scholar
  15. [35][35] James Duggan, Anthony McDonnell, Ultan Sherman, and Ronan Carbery. 2021. Work in the gig economy: A research overview. Routledge. Google Scholar
  16. [37][37] Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press. Digital Library Google Scholar
  17. [38][38] Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy. 2013. Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38, 8 (2013), 559--572. Crossref Google Scholar
  18. [39][39] Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy. 2017. Seeing like a market. Socio-economic review 15, 1 (2017), 9--29. Google Scholar
  19. [41][41] Alessandro Gandini. 2019. Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human relations 72, 6 (2019), 1039--1056. Google Scholar
  20. [42][42] Patricia Garcia. 2014. Documenting and classifying labor: the effect of legal discourse on the treatment of H-2A workers. Archival Science 14, 3 (2014), 345--363. Crossref Google Scholar
  21. [44][44] Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman. 2019. Algorithmic Control in Platform Food Delivery Work. Socius 5 (2019), 2378023119870041. Crossref Google Scholar
  22. [45][45] Richard Hyman. 1987. Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control. Work, employment and society 1, 1 (1987), 25--55. Google Scholar
  23. [46][46] ILO. 2018. 20th International Conference of Labour Statisticians Geneva, 10--19 October 2018. Statistical definition and measurement of dependent 'self-employed? workers (2018). Google Scholar
  24. [48][48] Julian Jürgenmeyer and Karoline Krenn. 2016. Classification Situations: A New Field of Research for Valuation Studies? Valuation Studies 4, 2 (2016), 177--189. Crossref Google Scholar
  25. [50][50] Ravinder Kaur. 2020. Brand new nation: Capitalist dreams and nationalist designs in twenty-first-century India. Stanford University Press. Crossref Google Scholar
  26. [53][53] Ben Light, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay. 2018. The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New media & society 20, 3 (2018), 881--900. Google Scholar
  27. [57][57] Mareike Möhlmann, Lior Zalmanson, Ola Henfridsson, and Robert Wayne Gregory. 2021. ALGORITHMIC MANAGEMENT OF WORK ON ONLINE LABOR PLATFORMS: WHEN MATCHING MEETS CONTROL. MIS quarterly 45, 4 (2021). Google Scholar
  28. [58][58] Tom Montgomery and Simone Baglioni. 2021. Defining the gig economy: platform capitalism and the reinvention of precarious work. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 41, 9/10 (2021), 1012--1025. Crossref Google Scholar
  29. [62][62] Roser Pujadas and Daniel Curto-Millet. 2019. From matchmaking to boundary making: Thinking infrastructures and decentring digital platforms in the sharing economy. In Thinking Infrastructures. Emerald Publishing Limited. Crossref Google Scholar
  30. [63][63] Noopur Raval and Joyojeet Pal. 2019. Making a" Pro":'professionalism'after platforms in beauty-work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--17. Google Scholar
  31. [65][65] Alex Rosenblat. 2018. Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. Univ of California Press. Crossref Google Scholar
  32. [66][66] Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication 10 (2016), 27. Google Scholar
  33. [67][67] Hanna Schneider, Malin Eiband, Daniel Ullrich, and Andreas Butz. 2018. Empowerment in HCI-A survey and framework. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14. Digital Library Google Scholar
  34. [68][68] Juliet B Schor and William Attwood-Charles. 2017. The 'sharing' economy: labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass 11, 8 (2017), e12493. Crossref Google Scholar
  35. [69][69] Ben Scully. 2016. Precarity north and south: A southern critique of Guy Standing. Global Labour Journal 7, 2 (2016). Crossref Google Scholar
  36. [70][70] John S Seberger, Hyesun Choung, and Prabu David. 2023. Problematizing 'Empowerment' in HCAI. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 270--279. Digital Library Google Scholar
  37. [71][71] John S Seberger, Marissel Llavore, Nicholas Nye Wyant, Irina Shklovski, and Sameer Patil. 2021. Empowering resignation: There's an app for that. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--18. Digital Library Google Scholar
  38. [72][72] Ujjwal Sehrawat, Namit Sawhney, Tejaswini Yeleswarapu, and Nimmi Rangaswamy. 2021. The Everyday HCI of Uber Drivers in India: A Developing Country Perspective. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--22. Digital Library Google Scholar
  39. [74][74] Anubha Singh, Patricia Garcia, and Silvia Lindtner. 2023. Old Logics, New Technologies: Producing a Managed Workforce on On-Demand Service Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15. Digital Library Google Scholar
  40. [75][75] A Srija, Shrinivas V Shirke, et al. 2014. An analysis of the informal labour market in India. Economy Matters 45, 12 (2014), 28--29. Google Scholar
  41. [76][76] Nick Srnicek. 2017. Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
  42. [77][77] Guy Standing. 2000. Brave new words? A critique of Stiglitz's World Bank rethink. Development and Change 31, 4 (2000), 737--763. Crossref Google Scholar
  43. [78][78] Arun Sundararajan. 2017. The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT press. Digital Library Google Scholar
  44. [79][79] Aditi Surie and Ursula Huws. 2023. Platformization and Informality: Pathways of Change, Alteration, and Transformation. In Platformization and Informality: Pathways of Change, Alteration, and Transformation. Springer, 1--12. Crossref Google Scholar
  45. [80][80] Aditi Surie and Jyothi Koduganti. 2016. The emerging nature of work in platform economy companies in Bengaluru, India: The case of Uber and Ola Cab drivers. E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies 5, 3 (2016). Google Scholar
  46. [81][81] Will Sutherland, Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Michael Dunn, and Sarah Beth Nelson. 2020. Work precarity and gig literacies in online freelancing. Work, Employment and Society 34, 3 (2020), 457--475. Crossref Google Scholar
  47. [84][84] Julia Ticona. 2015. Strategies of control: workers? use of ICTs to shape knowledge and service work. Information, Communication & Society 18, 5 (2015), 509--523. Crossref Google Scholar
  48. [85][85] Julia Ticona and Alexandra Mateescu. 2018. Trusted strangers: Carework platforms? cultural entrepreneurship in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society 20, 11 (2018), 4384--4404. Crossref Google Scholar
  49. [86][86] Jeemol Unni. 2018. Formalization of the informal economy: Perspectives of capital and labour. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 61, 1 (2018), 87--103. Crossref Google Scholar
  50. [89][89] Jamie Utt and Kathy G Short. 2018. Critical content analysis: A flexible method for thinking with theory. Understanding and dismantling privilege 8, 2 (2018), 1--7. Google Scholar
  51. [90][90] José Van Dijck, Thomas Poell, and Martijn De Waal. 2018. The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  52. [91][91] Niels Van Doorn. 2017. Platform labor: on the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the 'on-demand?economy. Information, Communication & Society 20, 6 (2017), 898--914. Crossref Google Scholar
  53. [92][92] Kalindi Vora. 2015. Life support: Biocapital and the new history of outsourced labor. U of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
  54. [94][94] Alex J Wood, Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019. Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society 33, 1 (2019), 56--75. Crossref Google Scholar
  55. [95][95] Alex J Wood, Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019. Networked but commodified: The (dis) embeddedness of digital labour in the gig economy. Sociology 53, 5 (2019), 931--950. Crossref Google Scholar
  56. [96][96] Jamie Woodcock and Mark Graham. 2019. The gig economy. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity (2019). Google Scholar Cited By View all Wang ZXiao SBie JZou XYao THuang Z(2026)Platform Power and Worker Agency: A Socio-Technical Review of the Gig EconomyProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/381698410:6(1-39)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2026 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3816984 Zhong QLim TDousin O(2026)Measuring job performance under algorithmic management: A systematic review of platform work and digital laborBusiness Performance Review10.22495/bprv4i3p34:3(32)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2026 https://doi.org/10.22495/bprv4i3p3 Qin YCheon E(2026)Labor, Capital, and Machine: Toward a Labor Process Theory for HCIProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3772318.3791147(1-20)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2026 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3772318.3791147 Show More Cited By Index Terms Index Terms (Premium feature) Entangled Independence: From Labor Rights to Gig "Empowerment" Under the Algorithmic Gaze Human-centered computing Human computer interaction (HCI) Empirical studies in HCI Recommendations Recommendations (Premium feature) Gig Platforms as Faux Infrastructure: A Case Study of Women Beauty Workers in India CSCW In order to sustain everyday life in India during pandemic induced lockdowns, home service gig platforms materialized to provide essential services for urban society. As unemployment worsened, these gig platforms also emerged as key sources of paid work ... Read More The effects of perceived algorithmic control on gig workers’ work efficiency within the online delivery industry in China DSAI '26: Proceedings of the 2026 3rd International Conference on Digital Society and Artificial Intelligence The continuous optimization and iteration of digital technologies have promoted the development of internet platforms to an unprecedented high level. A brand-new economic model of gig work relying on online platforms has also emerged as the times require, ... Read More Back to labor: returning to labor process discussions in the study of work CSCW '96: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work Read More Comments Comments (Premium feature) Information & Contributors Information Published In cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 8, Issue CSCW2 CSCW November 2024 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anjali Anwar, I., Garcia, P., & Hui, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2024-11-07
Volume
8
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-26
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3686916
OpenAlex
W4404173319
Cited by
5
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
Keywords
gig work, algorithmic classification, worker classification, independent contractors, precarious employment, social security benefits, algorithmic control, neoliberalism, labor process, India, gig platforms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review