Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

FareShare: A Tool for Labor Organizers to Estimate Lost Wages and Contest Arbitrary AI and Algorithmic Deactivations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FareShare, built from Washington's lost-wage law, cut deactivation compensation math from hours to minutes in a three-month union deployment.

desk verdict Real deployment, valuable adoption lessons, but the 95% time-savings claim is thinner than it looks and the Argyle data pipeline is never validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08904 v1 pith:UCYZ6DJU submitted 2025-05-13 cs.CY cs.AIcs.ETcs.HC

Varun Nagaraj Rao , Samantha Dalal , Andrew Schwartz , Amna Liaqat , Dana Calacci , Andrés Monroy-Hernández This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.ETcs.HC
keywords driverdeactivationlostwageestimationgigeconomyalgorithmicmanagementlabororganizingdataworkpolicy-guideddesignfielddeployment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FareShare is a tool the authors built with a Washington-state rideshare union to automate the calculation of wages lost during a driver's deactivation from Uber or Lyft. The paper argues that when a state law defines compensation in terms of past earnings, that formula can be encoded in software so organizers can produce arbitration-ready lost-wage reports without hand-copying screenshots into spreadsheets. In a three-month deployment with 178 linked driver accounts, the tool cut screenshot gathering during intake from about 25 minutes to 2.5 minutes per case and report generation from 2–3 hours to about 2 minutes, and it removed the manual transcription step where errors had been common. The union's legal team also used the synced trip data to audit platform-provided records, such as validating a disputed trip with latitude/longitude coordinates. The deployment was not frictionless: 20% of accounts failed to sync, mostly Uber, and consent and maintenance issues shaped how and whether staff kept using the tool.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the statutory lost-wage formula encoded as a computable procedure: average daily earnings over the 84 days before deactivation, multiplied by days deactivated, plus accrued interest at the statutory rate, with a fixed daily fallback when platforms refuse to share earnings. This formula is embedded in a dashboard where the legal team enters the deactivation and reactivation dates, selects Uber or Lyft, and generates a report. The surrounding machinery is data access: FareShare extends the FairFare driver sign-up flow, uses Argyle's API to retrieve and digitize trip data through webhooks, stores it in a database, and exposes it to organizers; the synced data, rather than the report alone, is what lets the legal team audit platform records.

What would settle it

Compare FareShare's computed lost wage for a sample of deactivated drivers against the platform's own statements and the drivers' screenshot records; if synced data omits or alters trips, or if the 20% sync-failure accounts skew toward higher-earning drivers, the claimed time savings would not translate into accurate compensation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that a policy mandate can be turned into a dependable evidence pipeline and that doing so changes the practical economics of contesting a deactivation. Washington law entitles a wrongfully deactivated driver to compensation based on average daily earnings over the preceding 12 weeks, with 12% interest, or a fixed $200 per day if the platform will not produce earnings. FareShare operationalizes exactly that rule: it links a driver's accounts through Argyle, syncs and standardizes trip-level data, computes the statutory baseline, and emits a PDF report plus raw data for the legal team. The deployment evidence shows the workflow time reductions and error elimination described above, and the authors report that attorneys used the data beyond lost wages, initiating negotiations and cross-checking company-provided trip records. The paper treats these outcomes as demonstrating both the promise and the fragility of policy-guided tools in high-stakes labor settings.

Load-bearing premise

The tool's outputs are only as reliable as the trip data Argyle retrieves, digitizes, and standardizes from Uber and Lyft; the paper does not independently verify that synced data against platform statements or driver screenshots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In states with comparable deactivation-compensation laws, the same statutory formula can be implemented directly, because the calculation is specified in legislation rather than left to platform discretion.
  • Legal teams can treat synced trip data as an audit layer over platform-provided records, as demonstrated by the disputed Vancouver trip validated through latitude/longitude coordinates.
  • The 20% account-sync failure rate means automation cannot yet replace manual screenshot collection; the union continued gathering screenshots alongside FareShare.
  • Academic consent flows with explicit opt-in and IRB language can add friction at intake, and organizers preferred consent models where trusted staff explain data-sharing terms by default.
  • Long-term adoption depends on in-house technical support, since sync errors and account-linking problems were beyond what the legal team could diagnose or fix.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported time savings are per-task, not per-case: if the tool enables organizers to take on more cases rather than spend less time per case, its net effect on the union's workload could be increased volume with the same staff.
  • The same trip-data pipeline could be extended into ongoing monitoring: post-reactivation data syncing would let unions detect retaliatory deactivations, pay shortfalls, or algorithmic steering patterns over time.
  • A testable extension is an error-classification layer for the 20% sync failures, distinguishing Argyle-side outages, missed consent checkboxes, and driver login/OTP issues, so field representatives can resolve the most common failure without an engineer.
  • Tools built for one policy remedy become long-lived data-governance infrastructure, which means consent, retention, and data-sharing decisions should be designed for repeated evidentiary use rather than a single claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes the design, deployment, and evaluation of FareShare, a web-based tool built with the Washington State rideshare drivers union (DU) to automate lost-wage estimation for deactivated drivers under Washington's HB 2076. Following a six-month formative study, the authors deployed the tool for three months, registering 178 account signups, and report time reductions of over 95% in two workflow steps (screenshot gathering and report generation), elimination of manual data-entry errors, and new capabilities for auditing platform-provided trip data. The paper also documents socio-technical challenges including consent friction, platform security warnings, and a 20% data-sync failure rate.

Significance. If the reported results are taken at face value, the paper offers a concrete, policy-guided system that addresses a real gap in labor-organizing data work, with potential transferability to other jurisdictions (e.g., Colorado, Minnesota). The authors are transparent about their research process, provide detailed appendices, and build on an open-source codebase; the compute of lost wages is a direct implementation of the statutory formula with no fitted parameters, so the 'model circularity' critique does not apply. The larger significance of the paper, however, hinges on empirical claims about efficiency and data accuracy that are not yet validated with the methodological rigor they require.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.1, §7.1, Appendix E] The headline efficiency claims—the 'over 95%' reduction from 25 to 2.5 minutes for intake and from 2–3 hours to 2 minutes for report generation (Abstract, §7.1, §8)—are not supported by a rigorous timing methodology. As the study protocol in Appendix E shows, the pre-tool baselines are self-reported from a pre-study questionnaire, and the post-tool times were observed during a single one-day field visit without a formal protocol for capturing durations, variation, or confidence intervals. No control condition, inter-rater reliability, or repeated measurement is reported. Because the time reduction is the central quantitative claim of the paper, the authors should either conduct a more systematic measurement (e.g., timed observations across multiple sessions with multiple staff) or substantially temper the 'over 95%' claims in the Abstract and Conclusion.
  2. [§5.2, §7.2, Appendix B] The 'eliminated manual data entry errors' and 'arbitration-ready reports' claims rest on the accuracy of Argyle's data retrieval, digitization, and standardization, yet the paper never validates synced trip data against any independent ground truth, despite two available sources: the screenshots that field representatives continue to collect (§7.1) and the platform-provided driver statements that become available during arbitration (§4.3.2). A silent data-quality error in Argyle's pipeline would produce the same class of wrong wage figures the tool was designed to prevent, but without the human-checkable transcriptions. The 20% sync failure rate (§7.2) is described, but data accuracy for successfully synced accounts is not treated as an open validity question. The authors should add a validation substudy comparing synced trip-level earnings against screenshot or platform-statement records for at least a sample of cases, or explicitly revise the error-elimination and evidentiary claims to be conditional on such validation.
  3. [Abstract, §8 vs. §7.2, §8.4] The abstract and conclusion state that the tool 'could reduce lost wage calculation time by over 95%, eliminate manual data entry errors, and enable legal teams to generate arbitration-ready reports' without noting the substantial caveats reported in the body: 20% of accounts failed to sync (mostly Uber), attorneys abandoned the tool for some cases after repeated failures, and staff lacked internal diagnostic capacity (§7.2, §8.4). These limitations are transparently acknowledged in the discussion, but they are omitted from the abstract's summary of findings. As a result, the paper overstates the deployable reliability of the tool. The abstract and conclusion should either include these caveats or frame the results as conditional on successful sync and on availability of technical support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] The tool is repeatedly called 'FairFaire' in one passage, which appears to be a typo for 'FairFare'.
  2. [§6.1, Table 3] The 'Error Rate' metric is defined vaguely as 'Observations on missing fields or incorrect data entry' without a coding scheme, counts, or reliability measures; report actual counts or remove the quantitative-sounding claim of 'eliminated errors.'
  3. [§7.1 and Abstract] The intake time is reported as '2–3 minutes' in the body text but '2.5 minutes' in the abstract and conclusion; likewise, the manual baseline appears as both '20–25 minutes' and '25 minutes' in different places. Please standardize these numbers.
  4. [§7.1] The quote 'When it works, it work's great!' contains a typo; it should be 'works great.'
  5. [§7.3] The case of the disputed Vancouver, Washington trip is an interesting validation anecdote, but the description is too brief to know whether the tool's data was independently confirmed by the platform statement or only by the attorneys' reference to latitude/longitude; please add a sentence clarifying the verification basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lost-wage calculation is a direct statutory implementation, and the evaluation claims are empirical workflow observations rather than model predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then predict a closely related quantity. FareShare's core computation is a direct implementation of a legally specified formula: Washington's deactivation compensation is based on the driver's average daily earnings over the 12 weeks preceding deactivation, multiplied by the number of days deactivated, plus 12% interest. The paper quotes the legal team's description: "We would look at the 12 weeks prior to their deactivation and what they were making on a daily average. So added up, divided by the 84 and then use that daily average to multiply it by the amount of days they have been deactivated." FareShare simply automates that formula on synced trip data. There is no fitted input that is later renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in through citation. The reported efficiency gains (25 to 2.5 minutes for intake; 2-3 hours to 2 minutes for report generation) and error-elimination claims are empirical field-observation and self-report claims about workflow time, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs. The paper does cite FairFare [6], a same-author prior tool that FareShare extends, but that citation is disclosure of the system's provenance rather than load-bearing evidence for the lost-wage calculation, which comes from statute. Concerns about unvalidated Argyle data, the 20% sync failure rate, and the exclusion of sync time from efficiency estimates are correctness and validity concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (time reduction, error elimination) rests on assumed baseline times and on the fidelity of Argyle-synced data, not on any new physical or mathematical entity. No free parameters are fitted to data; the legal constants are fixed by statute. The weakest external dependency is the unvalidated third-party data pipeline.

free parameters (2)
  • 12-week reference period = 84 days
    Chosen directly from Washington HB 2076 / Seattle Ordinance, not fitted to data. It is a legal input, not a free parameter in the scientific sense, but it is a user-selectable setting in the tool (Section 5.3).
  • Interest rate = 12%
    Default set by the policy, not fitted. Included as a parameter in the tool's report generation. It is a legal constant, not an empirical fit.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The lost wage calculation should use average daily earnings from the 12 weeks prior to deactivation, as specified by Washington HB 2076.
    This formula is the legal basis for the tool. It is stated in Section 3.2 and operationalized in Section 5.3. The paper does not independently justify the formula beyond the law.
  • domain assumption Argyle's retrieved trip and earnings data are sufficiently accurate and complete to represent the driver's actual platform earnings.
    The tool's reports rely entirely on data synced from Argyle. The paper does not validate this data against platform statements or screenshots, and 20% of accounts failed to sync. Discussed in Sections 7.2 and B.
  • domain assumption The manual pre-tool workflow took 25 minutes for intake and 2 to 3 hours for report generation, as reported by DU staff.
    The 95% time reduction is computed relative to these self-reported baselines. No independent measurement of the pre-tool workflow is provided. Section 7.1 and Appendix E rely on self-reports.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FareShare: A Tool for Labor Organizers to Estimate Lost Wages and Contest Arbitrary AI and Algorithmic Deactivations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UCYZ6DJU

@misc{pith2026250508904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FareShare: A Tool for Labor Organizers to Estimate Lost Wages and Contest Arbitrary AI and Algorithmic Deactivations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UCYZ6DJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08904}
}
read the original abstract

What happens when a rideshare driver is suddenly locked out of the platform connecting them to riders, wages, and daily work? Deactivation-the abrupt removal of gig workers' platform access-typically occurs through arbitrary AI and algorithmic decisions with little explanation or recourse. This represents one of the most severe forms of algorithmic control and often devastates workers' financial stability. Recent U.S. state policies now mandate appeals processes and recovering compensation during the period of wrongful deactivation based on past earnings. Yet, labor organizers still lack effective tools to support these complex, error-prone workflows. We designed FareShare, a computational tool automating lost wage estimation for deactivated drivers, through a 6 month partnership with the State of Washington's largest rideshare labor union. Over the following 3 months, our field deployment of FareShare registered 178 account signups. We observed that the tool could reduce lost wage calculation time by over 95%, eliminate manual data entry errors, and enable legal teams to generate arbitration-ready reports more efficiently. Beyond these gains, the deployment also surfaced important socio-technical challenges around trust, consent, and tool adoption in high-stakes labor contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screenshots of Driver Deactivation Notifications on Uber and Lyft sourced from Subreddits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lost Wage Provision From the Seattle Human Rights Rules (SHRR) Chapter 200, Rules for administering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lost Wage Provision From Washington House Bill 2076 codified in the Revised Code of Washington [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As a result of regulation in the State of Washington, drivers have due process to help [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Driver Deactivation Appeals Process established by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Field representatives schedule and conduct intake interviews up to 60 minutes with deactivated drivers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summary of challenges faced by the DU in lost wage data collection and analysis. 4.3.4 Successful resolution of a deactivation case is defined by driver satisfaction— through reactivation, compensation or clarity. Successful resolution of deactivation cases takes multi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: High Level Flow of FareShare. We built FareShare by extending the FairFare. Field Representatives first help drivers sign up on FairFare. Rideshare trip data then syncs from Argyle (a third party data provider) to a database. The legal team and organizers then input th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FairFare Driver Sign-Up Process We built FareShare by extending an open-source tool called FairFare [6] to sign up drivers, access their historical rideshare trip data and estimate their lost wage. FairFare already offers a straightforward driver signup process requiri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lost Wage Report Generation Process. After logging into the dashboard and selecting a driver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribu￾tion of the 143 accounts with successfully synced data: Uber (78) and Lyft (65) We observed high uptake of FareShare during the 3-month field deployment from December 31st, 2024 to March 31st, 2025. We recorded 122 user sign ups. And these users connected a t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Occasionally, Uber’s security features generate location-mismatch warnings over email during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: System Usability Scale from [5] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mark S Ackerman. 2000. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human–Computer Interaction 15, 2-3 (2000), 179–203

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Action Center on Race and the Economy. 2025. Driven Out By AI: How Uber Deactivations Force Drivers into Chatbot Hell and Financial Crisis. https://acrecampaigns.org/research_post/driven-out-by-ai/ Accessed: May 3, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Eli Blevis. 2007. Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 503–512

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Harry Braverman. 1998. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century . nyu Press

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Dana Calacci, Varun Nagaraj Rao, Samantha Dalal, Catherine Di, Kok-Wei Pua, Andrew Schwartz, Danny Spitzberg, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2025. FairFare: A Tool for Crowdsourcing Rideshare Data to Empower Labor Organizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11273 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Dan Calacci and Alex Pentland. 2022. Bargaining with the black-box: Designing and deploying worker-centric tools to audit algorithmic management. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–24

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Dan Calacci and Jake Stein. 2023. From access to understanding: Collective data governance for workers. European Labour Law Journal 14, 2 (2023), 253–282

    2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Making out

    Lindsey D Cameron. 2022. “Making out” while driving: Relational and efficiency games in the gig economy.Organization Science 33, 1 (2022), 231–252

    2022

  2. [10]

    good bad

    Lindsey D Cameron. 2024. The making of the “good bad” job: How algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly 69, 2 (2024), 458–514

    2024

  3. [11]

    Alissa Centivany. 2016. Policy as embedded generativity: A case study of the emergence and evolution of hathiTrust. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing . 926–940

    2016

  4. [12]

    Janet Davis, Harry Hochheiser, Juan Pablo Hourcade, Jeff Johnson, Lisa Nathan, and Janice Tsai. 2012. Occupy CHI! engaging US policymakers. In CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1139–1142

    2012

  5. [13]

    Carl DiSalvo, Jonathan Lukens, Thomas Lodato, Tom Jenkins, and Tanyoung Kim. 2014. Making public things: how HCI design can express matters of concern. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. 2397–2406

    2014

  6. [14]

    Douglas C Engelbart and William K English. 1968. A research center for augmenting human intellect. In Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I . 395–410

    1968

  7. [15]

    Casey Fiesler, Jessica L Feuston, and Amy S Bruckman. 2015. Understanding copyright law in online creative communities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing . 116–129

    2015

  8. [16]

    Joan Greenbaum. 1996. Back to Labor: Returning to labor process discussions in the study of work. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work . 229–237

    1996

  9. [17]

    Kati L Griffith. 2018. The Fair Labor Standards Act at 80: Everything Old Is New Again. Cornell L. Rev. 104 (2018), 557

    2018

  10. [18]

    Jonathan Grudin. 1988. Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work . 85–93

    1988

  11. [19]

    Oliver L Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner. 2021. Disproportionate removals and differing content moderation experiences for conservative, transgender, and black social media users: Marginalization and moderation gray areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Hum...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 159–166

    1999

  13. [21]

    Lilly C Irani and M Six Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 611–620

    2013

  14. [22]

    Steven J Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The policy knot: Re-integrating policy, practice and design in CSCW studies of social computing. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing . 588–602

    2014

  15. [23]

    Sabine Junginger. 2013. Design and innovation in the public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and policy implementation. Annual Review of Policy Design 1, 1 (2013), 1–11

    2013

  16. [24]

    Nick Keppler. 2025. They Were Deactivated From Delivering. Their Finances Were Devastated. https://www.nytimes. com/2025/03/29/business/uber-lyft-doordash-deactivation.html

    2025

  17. [25]

    Vera Khovanskaya, Lynn Dombrowski, Jeffrey Rzeszotarski, and Phoebe Sengers. 2019. The tools of management: Adapting historical union tactics to platform-mediated labor. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–22

    2019

  18. [26]

    Vera Khovanskaya and Phoebe Sengers. 2019. Data rhetoric and uneasy alliances: Data advocacy in US labor history. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1391–1403

    2019

  19. [27]

    Jonathan Lazar. 2010. Interacting with public policy interacting with public policy. Interactions 17, 1 (2010), 40–43. 24 Nagaraj Rao et al

    2010

  20. [28]

    Jonathan Lazar. 2015. Public policy and HCI: making an impact in the future. Interactions 22, 5 (2015), 69–71

    2015

  21. [29]

    Jonathan Lazar, Julio Abascal, Simone Barbosa, Jeremy Barksdale, Batya Friedman, Jens Grossklags, Jan Gulliksen, Jeff Johnson, Tom McEwan, Loïc Martínez-Normand, et al. 2016. Human–computer interaction and international public policymaking: a framework for understanding and ta...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 1603–1612

    2015

  23. [31]

    Joseph CR Licklider. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics 1 (1960), 4–11

    1960

  24. [32]

    Varun Nagaraj Rao, Eesha Agarwal, Samantha Dalal, Dan Calacci, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2025. QuaLLM: An LLM-based framework to extract quantitative insights from online forums. Findings of ACL, NAACL (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Varun Nagaraj Rao, Samantha Dalal, Eesha Agarwal, Dana Calacci, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2025. Rideshare Transparency: Translating Gig Worker Insights on AI Platform Design to Policy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 9, 2 (2025), 1–49

    2025

  26. [34]

    Orlikowski, and Joanne Yates

    Kazuo Okamura, Masayo Fujimoto, Wanda J. Orlikowski, and Joanne Yates. 1995. Helping CSCW Applications Succeed: The Role of Mediators in the Context of Use. The Information Society 11, 3 (July 1995), 157–172. doi:10.1080/01972243. 1995.9960190

    1995

  27. [35]

    Wanda J Orlikowski and Jack J Baroudi. 1991. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information systems research 2, 1 (1991), 1–28

    1991

  28. [36]

    Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: A Case Study of Uber’s Drivers. 10 (2016), 27

    2016

  29. [37]

    Lindsey Schwartz, Nic Weber, and Eva Maxfield Brown. 2023. Deactivation with and without Representation: The Role of Dispute Arbitration for Seattle Rideshare Drivers. (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Internal Revenue Service. 2025. Independent contractor (self-employed) or employee? Website. https://www.irs. gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee Accessed on 2025-05-03

    2025

  31. [39]

    Faiz Siddiqui. 2021. Uber and Lyft to share data on driver deactivations, more than a year after pledging to do so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/11/uber-lyft-driver-database/

    2021

  32. [40]

    Anne Spaa, Abigail Durrant, Chris Elsden, and John Vines. 2019. Understanding the Boundaries between Policymaking and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2019

  33. [41]

    Anne Spaa, Nick Spencer, Abigail Durrant, and John Vines. 2022. Creative and collaborative reflective thinking to support policy deliberation and decision making. Evidence & Policy 18, 2 (2022), 376–390

    2022

  34. [42]

    Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 8 (1999), 9–30

    1999

  35. [43]

    Lucille Alice Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication . Cambridge university press

    1987

  36. [44]

    Back to Labor

    Joice Tang, McKane Andrus, Samuel So, Udayan Tandon, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Vera Khovanskaya, Sean A Munson, Mark Zachry, and Sucheta Ghoshal. 2023. Back to “Back to Labor”: Revisiting Political Economies of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In Companion Publication of th...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Jermont Terry. 2022. Chicago Rideshare Drivers Say They’re Being Deactivated Unfairly After Bad Reviews, Call For Hearings Before Deactivation. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-rideshare-drivers-call-deactivation- hearings/

    2022

  38. [46]

    Lachlan Urquhart and Tom Rodden. 2017. New directions in information technology law: learning from human– computer interaction. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 31, 2 (2017), 150–169

    2017

  39. [47]

    Lachlan D Urquhart, Glenn McGarry, and Andy Crabtree. 2022. Legal provocations for HCI in the design and development of trustworthy autonomous systems. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference . 1–12

    2022

  40. [48]

    Krishnan Vasudevan and Ngai Keung Chan. 2022. Gamification and work games: Examining consent and resistance among Uber drivers. New Media & Society 24, 4 (2022), 866–886

    2022

  41. [49]

    Elizabeth Anne Watkins. 2023. Face Work: A Human-Centered Investigation into Facial Verification in Gig Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (April 2023), 1–24. doi:10.1145/3579485

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Cedric Deslandes Whitney, Teresa Naval, Elizabeth Quepons, Simrandeep Singh, Steven R Rick, and Lilly Irani. 2021. HCI tactics for politics from below: Meeting the challenges of smart cities. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    2021

  43. [51]

    Jamie Woodcock. 2021. Towards a digital workerism: Workers’ inquiry, methods, and technologies. NanoEthics 15, 1 (2021), 87–98. FareShare 25

    2021

  44. [52]

    Jamie Woodcock and Mark R. Johnson. 2018. Gamification: What It Is, and How to Fight It. The Sociological Review 66, 3 (May 2018), 542–558. doi:10.1177/0038026117728620

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D

    Qian Yang, Richmond Y. Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D. Hagan, Thomas Gilbert, and John Zimmerman. 2024. The Future of HCI-Policy Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). As...

    2024

  46. [54]

    free and open-source component-based front-end software framework

    Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Jonathan Lynn, Chun-Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2023. Stakeholder-Centered AI Design: Co-Designing Worker Tools with Gig Workers through Data Probes. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19. A RIDESHA...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.