
The perils of microtask work - okket
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/09/in-most-cases-online-microtask-work-can-be-a-raw-deal-un-study-finds/
======
tenpoundhammer
I think this particular example is a great example of what's difficult about
the world right now.

Technology has opened many new opportunities for corporations and for everyday
people.

However, the pace of new opportunities is way faster than the ability that
governments have to regulate the new opportunities. It would seem that
companies, entrepreneurs, and silicon valley have realized this and are using
it as a business strategy. If I had to sum up the business strategy, I would
say "Find a regularity system that can be exploited by rapid innovation".

While it's always been a business strategy to exploit legal loopholes, I think
the difference is that companies exploit an entire regulatory system which is
harder to update and takes longer. Airbnb, Uber, Mechanical Turk, are all
examples of exploiting a regulatory system by creating a product and then
quickly scaling it up to mass adoption before the practices introduced can be
outlawed.

Once something has been massively adopted it's difficult to stop completely.

While the word exploit seems inherently negative I'm not trying to make
judgment value, I think it's the correct description. I don't have a strong
opinion about any of these companies or exploiting regulatory systems.

However, I do think that democracy needs to find a way to keep up with the
forces taking advantage of its inherent systematic boundaries, such as being
slow to react. I'm not sure what needs to change but I think when you have
many US citizens participating in completely unregulated labor markets there
is a problem that needs to be solved.

~~~
394549
> I think the difference is that companies exploit an entire regulatory system
> which is harder to update and takes longer. Airbnb, Uber, Mechanical Turk,
> are all examples of exploiting a regulatory system by creating a product and
> then quickly scaling it up to mass adoption before the practices introduced
> can be outlawed.

> Once something has been massively adopted it's difficult to stop completely.

> ...

> However, I do think that democracy needs to find a way to keep up with the
> forces taking advantage of its inherent systematic boundaries, such as being
> slow to react. I'm not sure what needs to change but I think when you have
> many US citizens participating in completely unregulated labor markets there
> is a problem that needs to be solved.

I think the solution is that it be made _very clear_ to the companies pushing
the regulatory boundaries (and their fans) that they should be prepared to
have their business models destroyed when the regulatory environment catches
up.

Call it "Creative Destruction 2.0."

~~~
michaelbuckbee
This feels too harsh. It's not that either the business models need destroyed
or that regulations should never change, but that some middle ground is worked
out that benefits society at large.

All the services we're talking about have both real utility and (for the most
part) unplanned costs and impacts.

The Taxi Medallion system is/was horribly corrupt and inefficient. Uber (for
all their faults) is an improvement in terms of safety, convenience and less
discriminatory practices.

Similarly, AirBnB isn't defacto a horrible presence in cities (tons of great
experiences), but hosts should abide by neighborhood norms, pay hotel taxes,
etc.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Uber, for all its faults, _may_ be a vast improvement on the USA approach to
taxis.

In many of the other countries Uber has presence it has done damage to a
sector that was not horribly corrupt or inefficient. Yet the workers and
governments still have to react to rule breaking that effectively treats
everywhere on the planet as some US city with a broken and corrupt taxi
system.

In the UK I would call Uber a very marginal increase in convenience (all taxis
have apps if that's your preferred method), but _absolutely and demonstrably_
significantly worse in terms of safety, discriminatory practices, and worker's
incomes. So overall I don't think it is too harsh, at least here.

------
satyrnein
I think the concept of "informed consent" is applicable here.

Are the workers informed? Much like the question of whether Uber drivers
properly factor in the cost of maintenance, it's possible that workers do not
have the right expectations of what they will earn, so articles like this are
helpful in adding context and information. Let it get around that these tasks
make you less than minimum wage.

Do the workers consent? Obviously they consent in at least some sense, so
comparisons to slavery (as in the comments to the original article) are
overblown. These workers are free to seek other options. However, it's also
possible that they are correctly concluding this is their best option, due to
lack of opportunity in their area, health reasons that make them immobile,
etc. In that case, then two cheers for MTurk for improving their lives, to at
least some extent.

~~~
jakelazaroff
I take issue with your conclusion that "if the workers are correctly
concluding this their best option, then cheers to Mechanical Turk for
improving their lives to some extent". A less generous interpretation is that
Amazon has identified a cohort of people with limited employment options and
found a way to effectively pay them less than minimum wage.

Is any job better than none to an unemployed person? Maybe — but we need money
to live, and labor laws exist precisely to prevent employers from exploiting
that.

~~~
twerpy_d
The same wage that's a slap in the face to an American can be quite lucrative
to someone in a lesser developed nation. Hits for pennies are a god send to
those folks.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Maybe so, but the article, parent comment and my comment are all referring to
people for whom microtasks are _not_ a lucrative source of income.

------
sjbase
> The survey counted unpaid work as "time spent looking for tasks, earning
> qualifications, researching requesters through online forums, communicating
> with requesters or clients and leaving reviews, as well as unpaid/rejected
> tasks/tasks ultimately not submitted."

These hidden costs are almost identical in the world of independent freelance
work. Similar for "gig" workers as well. An Uber/Lyft driver told me he aims
for 10 hours per day, which usually takes an extra 4 hours (14 total) of
unpaid relocating, waiting around, etc.

My hope is that people view this as the cost of autonomy, but I fear most
people aren't pricing it in.

~~~
tomjen3
Presumably they would find out about those costs relatively fast.

But I mean those costs have always been part of the reason freelancers are
more expensive than employees (the other being the increased flexibility).

What seems to happen now is that, increasingly, free lancers are cheaper,
which suggests that employees are paid above the price they could expect, if
there weren't rules about minimum wage.

~~~
s73v3r_
Freelancers had the ability to set their price. With most of these gig apps,
you have exactly zero say in how much is being charged.

------
emodendroket
Honestly, nothing here is surprising. It's amazing that this stuff operates
without scrutiny.

------
jstanley
I don't see the problem. People wouldn't do the tasks if they didn't think it
was beneficial to them.

~~~
nkrisc
People will sacrifice well-being in one area (ex.: mental health) for well-
being in an other area (ex.: money for housing/food). That doesn't mean it
isn't a problem. You seem to be assuming a perfectly rational world...

~~~
jstanley
You seem to be assuming that you know what's best for other people. Why not
leave it up to them?

If you were to shut down MTurk I don't think the people who rely on it for
money would thank you.

~~~
crc32
Your question amounts to "Why do we have employment law"?

~~~
beaconstudios
more like "should we be creating employment law for microtask work?" which is
more of an open question, especially if you consider what such legislation
might look like and what effects it may have on the workers and clients alike.

~~~
xg15
What is so fundamentally different about microtask work that it would warrant
no employment regulations?

~~~
beaconstudios
well, a ton of things - it's much closer to freelance work than employment.
Not that I'm even advocating for keeping it deregulated specifically - I was
making the point that when considering regulation, the (often accidental)
effects of said regulation need to be considered. You don't want to fall afoul
of the Cobra effect and end up destroying a good thing.

Regulation should be introduced to fix specific issues, not just because there
aren't any yet. Especially if it's filling an important financial gap for
people with low incomes.

