Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Not Even Nice Work If You Can Get It; A Longitudinal Study of Uber's Algorithmic Pay and Pricing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Uber's median cut of the passenger fare rose from 25% to 29% after dynamic pricing, real hourly pay fell, and trip earnings became much less predictable, this paper argues from 1.5 million trips.

desk verdict Genuinely useful DSAR-based audit of Uber pay at real scale with a solid method contribution, but the 25-to-29% take-rate headline sits on a missing year of baseline data and an informally validated fare field, so hold that one number loosely. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15278 v1 pith:HYIYJXLJ submitted 2025-06-18 cs.CY cs.HC

Reuben Binns , Jake Stein , Siddhartha Datta , Max Van Kleek , Nigel Shadbolt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords algorithmicmanagementgigworkdynamicpricingtakeratedatasubjectaccessrequestsparticipatoryauditworkerscienceride-hailing
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

The paper sets out to show that Uber's introduction of dynamic pricing in the UK made drivers worse off on four measurable dimensions at once: hourly pay, the share of the fare Uber keeps, time spent waiting for work, and the predictability of earnings. Its evidence is a longitudinal dataset of 1.5 million trips from 258 drivers, each obtained through the drivers' own data subject access requests, spanning 2016 to 2024. Comparing the year before and after the February 2023 rollout, the authors report that the median take rate rose from the old fixed 25% to 29%, real average pay per hour fell on both definitions of working time, and standby time now often exceeds time spent on trips. The result matters because it directly tests Uber's public claim that its cut stayed at 25% and that pay was stable.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the audit corpus itself: a collection of data subject access requests (DSARs), the records Uber returned to 258 drivers under data-protection law, which the authors cleaned, pseudonymised, and joined into a longitudinal trip-level database covering 1.5 million trips. Within that corpus the load-bearing identity is the take rate, computed as the driver payment divided by the 'original fare' recorded in the trip data, with the two tables joined by timestamp because Uber supplies no trip identifier. Around that identity the paper builds two comparisons: a before/after contrast anchored to the February 2023 introduction of dynamic pricing in London, and a predictability test in which linear regression models trained on over 60 trip variables from past years are evaluated on later years, showing $R^2$ deteriorate sharply after 2023.

What would settle it

Obtain a matched sample where the passenger's own itemised receipt and the driver's DSAR record for the same trip are compared directly; if the restored 'original fare' field disagrees with passenger receipts at a non-negligible rate, or if the timestamp join can be shown to misallocate payments, the claim that Uber's median cut rose from 25% to 29% would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is distributional. After dynamic pricing, the share of the passenger fare kept by Uber is no longer a fixed 25% but varies trip by trip, with a median driver take rate of 71% (Uber's median cut 29%) and some trips on which Uber keeps more than half. The higher the fare charged to the passenger, the larger Uber's cut and the lower the driver's earnings per minute in absolute terms, which explains how Uber's surplus per driver-hour on trip could rise 38% (from £8.47 to £11.70) while mean take rates stayed near 75%. Around the same time, inflation-adjusted pay per hour fell under both the Employment Tribunal's definition of working time (from £22.20 to £19.06) and Uber's narrower definition (from £37.01 to £35.91), standby time rose past trip time in several months, and linear models trained on any pre-2023 year failed to predict 2023-24 trip pay. Among the 114 drivers active throughout the transition, 93 earned less and 21 earned more per hour.

Load-bearing premise

The take-rate results all depend on the assumption that the 'original fare' field restored in February 2023 again reports the fare the passenger actually paid, and that the timestamp-based join correctly pairs each driver payment with its trip; the paper reports driver and customer confirmation but no systematic validation or error rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the median take rate rose from 25% to 29%, Uber's public claim that its cut remains a stable 25% fails on the median trip, even though mean take rates stay near 75%.
  • Higher take rates on costlier trips invert the incentive to seek premium work: drivers earn less per minute on high-fare journeys.
  • Estimated surplus per driver-hour on trip rose 38% (from £8.47 to £11.70), showing the platform, not the driver, captures the benefit of higher passenger prices.
  • Pay predictability collapsed: models trained on any pre-2023 year cannot predict 2023-24 trip pay, so drivers' accumulated knowledge of when and where to work stops paying off.
  • Among 114 drivers active through the transition, 93 were worse off after dynamic pricing, indicating the change widened inequality among drivers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the paper compares London before and after dynamic pricing without a control group, a natural test is to run the same DSAR pipeline on drivers in a UK city that adopted dynamic pricing later; contemporaneous driver-supply growth could account for part of the pay and standby changes.
  • Editorial inference: the finding that take rates rise with fare value suggests a flat percentage cap and a cap on Uber's absolute pounds-per-trip would produce different distributions of driver earnings; the paper's data would support simulating both policies.
  • Editorial inference: the original-fare field disappeared for a year inside the study period, so DSAR-based take-rate monitoring is vulnerable to silent backend changes; a platform could blind this audit method again by altering or removing the field.
  • Editorial inference: the pooled predictability regressions leave open whether individual drivers who reject more trips preserve higher pay after dynamic pricing, a question the paper's acceptance-rate observations point to but do not test.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a participatory action research audit of Uber's algorithmic pay and pricing in the UK, based on Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) responses from 258 drivers covering over 1.5 million trips between 2016 and 2024. The authors compare pay per hour under two definitions of working time, Uber's take rate before and after the introduction of dynamic pricing, utilisation (standby vs. en-route vs. on-trip time), inequality among drivers, and the predictability of pay using regression models. The central claims are that average pay per hour has been roughly stagnant since 2016 and is lower in the year after dynamic pricing, Uber's median take rate increased from 25% to 29% after dynamic pricing (with trip-level Uber take rates above 50% in some cases), standby time has increased, pay has become less predictable, and 93 of 114 drivers active through the transition were worse off in average pay per hour. The paper also contributes a methodological argument for DSAR-based algorithm auditing and a participatory worker data science approach.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is an important empirical contribution to the study of algorithmic management and gig work: it is, to my knowledge, the first large-scale audit built from DSAR data, and the longitudinal coverage from 2016 to 2024 is unusual. The participatory design, partnerships with Worker Info Exchange, and candid acknowledgement of causal limitations are strengths, as is the availability of code and data on GitHub. The pay-per-hour, utilisation, inequality, and predictability findings are largely supported by the described analyses, with the caveats noted below. However, the headline take-rate claim, as currently stated, relies on an unobserved pre-dynamic-pricing baseline and informally validated fields, so it needs additional work before it can be treated as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.3 and 5.1] The claim that Uber's median take rate 'increased from 25% to 29%' is not directly supported because the pre-dynamic-pricing baseline is unobserved under the same data schema. Section 4.3 states that from February 2022 the 'original fare' field no longer represented the customer fare and commission charges disappeared from Payments.csv, so no take-rate data exist from 2022-02 until the field was restored around dynamic pricing. The 25% baseline therefore comes from Uber's public commission statements or from earlier periods under a different payment architecture (passenger pays driver plus service fee); assuming that the rate persisted unchanged until dynamic pricing is an untested assumption. I would accept the claim if the authors either validate the baseline with an independent source for the immediate pre-dynamic-pricing period or explicitly reframe the finding as a post-dynamic-pricing take-rate distribution centred at a 71% driver share (29% Uber share), with the advertised 25% historical commission treated as context rather than as a directly measured baseline.
  2. [4.3] The restored 'original fare' field and the timestamp-based join to Payments.csv are not systematically validated. The paper reports that the restored field was 'confirmed by drivers and customers' and that the pre-2022 field was 'independently verified with individual drivers', but no validation protocol, sample size, or error rate is provided. Because there is no unique trip identifier in the DSAR data, a misallocation of payments to trips would directly change the computed take-rate distribution. Please report a validation procedure, quantify the match error rate, and show that the main take-rate results are robust to plausible join failures.
  3. [4.1, 4.3, and 4.4] The headline numerical comparisons are presented without any measure of uncertainty. The differences between pre- and post-dynamic-pricing pay per hour (£22.20 vs £19.06; £37.01 vs £35.91), the median take-rate shift, the 93/21 split among the 114 drivers, and the 38% surplus increase could all reflect driver-composition changes or sampling variation across the unbalanced panel. Report confidence intervals (for example, bootstrap intervals) and, for the longitudinal comparisons, show results on a balanced panel of drivers present in both periods so that composition effects can be assessed.
  4. [4.5] The predictability analysis is under-specified. The text says 'over 60 variables' are used but does not list them, describe preprocessing, or state the train/test split procedure beyond 'train on previous year, test on current year'; the model is described only as linear regression with no detail on categorical encodings or handling of correlated trip-level observations. The negative R² values in Tables 1 and 2 would be more interpretable alongside a baseline model (for example, predicting the mean) and a comparison model trained on post-dynamic-pricing data only. Please provide the full feature set, model details, and evaluation protocol, or the claim of a drop in predictability is not reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The term 'take rate' is used for both Uber's percentage cut and the driver's share; 'take rates as high as 50%' in the abstract and introduction is ambiguous and should specify which side.
  2. [Introduction and 4.3] There is an inconsistency about the timing of Uber's disclosure of weekly average take rates: the Introduction says December 2024, while Section 4.3 says January 2025. Please reconcile.
  3. [4.4] The figure references are confusing: the text refers to 'Figure 6, left' and 'Figure 7 (right)', but the captions do not clearly support these pointers. Please correct the references.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The column headers Y-1, Y-2, etc. are not defined in the text; please define the lag notation and note that R² can be negative for out-of-sample predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline results are descriptive statistics from independent DSAR data with external baselines, not outputs derived from the conclusions.

full rationale

This is an observational audit, so the circularity patterns that apply to fitted models or theorem-proving papers do not bite. Pay-per-hour, utilisation, surplus, take rate, and predictability are computed directly from the DSAR Payments and Trips files; no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion. The take-rate comparison uses two independent anchors: Uber's publicly advertised 25% commission (and the paper's own pre-2022 DSAR 'commission' field that it says 'always added up to the correct commission rate'), and the post-2023 'original fare' field that the authors state was independently confirmed by drivers and customers. The one-year gap in take-rate data before dynamic pricing is an acknowledged continuity assumption, not a circular derivation. The predictability section is a genuine out-of-sample transfer test: training a linear model on pre-dynamic-pricing years and testing on post-dynamic-pricing years is not equivalent to asserting unpredictability, and the reported R-squared values are empirical; the paper even notes that models trained and tested inside the post-dynamic regime perform well. The paper's own limitation statement in Section 5.2 explicitly says the design cannot isolate causal effects of dynamic pricing, which is a measurement-validity caveat rather than circularity. Self-citations such as [40] and [41] appear in methodological framing ('collective leveraging of data rights', 'previous work ... we explored possible data governance') and are not load-bearing for any numeric claim. No circular step meets the evidentiary bar required by the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the authenticity of Uber-provided DSAR exports, on a chosen definition of the fare base for take rates, on the assumption that weekly payment aggregation evens out, and on a contractual rather than observed pre-dynamic-pricing baseline. No fitted free parameters are load-bearing, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The DSAR export from Uber accurately reflects the underlying backend records for trips, payments, fares, and working-time events.
    All metrics are computed from DSAR files provided by Uber; errors, omissions, or deliberate masking in those exports would propagate into every figure. See Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The 'original fare' field denotes the full passenger fare, with passenger promotions treated as part of Uber's valuation rather than discounts that reduce Uber's true take.
    Used for take-rate and surplus calculations in Section 4.3; the paper explicitly excludes promotions and third-party fees, a definitional choice rather than an observation.
  • domain assumption Weekly aggregation of all payments and driver charges divided by weekly hours evens out irregular payments over longer periods.
    Section 4.1 admits this is imperfect but assumes it averages out across time and drivers; if false, pay-per-hour comparisons are biased.
  • domain assumption The pre-dynamic-pricing baseline can be taken as the contractual fixed commission rate of 20% then 25% rather than an observed trip-level distribution.
    Section 4.3 says take rate data is missing from February 2022 until after dynamic pricing; the reported increase compares the post-dynamic-pricing measured distribution to this contractual baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Not Even Nice Work If You Can Get It; A Longitudinal Study of Uber's Algorithmic Pay and Pricing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYIYJXLJ

@misc{pith2026250615278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Not Even Nice Work If You Can Get It; A Longitudinal Study of Uber's Algorithmic Pay and Pricing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYIYJXLJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15278}
}
read the original abstract

Ride-sharing platforms like Uber market themselves as enabling `flexibility' for their workforce, meaning that drivers are expected to anticipate when and where the algorithm will allocate them jobs, and how well remunerated those jobs will be. In this work we describe our process of participatory action research with drivers and trade union organisers, culminating in a participatory audit of Uber's algorithmic pay and work allocation, before and after the introduction of dynamic pricing. Through longitudinal analysis of 1.5 million trips from 258 drivers in the UK, we find that after dynamic pricing, pay has decreased, Uber's cut has increased, job allocation and pay is less predictable, inequality between drivers is increased, and drivers spend more time waiting for jobs. In addition to these findings, we provide methodological and theoretical contributions to algorithm auditing, gig work, and the emerging practice of worker data science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pay per hour according to employment tribunal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average hours/day on standby (red), en route (green), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frequency of driver/Uber splits, post dynamic pric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average per minute fare for varying driver/uber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of percentage change in pay per hour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pay per hour for higher (blue)/lower (red) earners [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mapping data pipeline from a typical DSAR re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Hours Worked, Lower-Paid (Orange) vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Take Rates for Lower-Paid vs Same/Higher-Paid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jeremias Adams-Prassl. 2022. Uber BV v Aslam:‘[W] ork relations. . . cannot safely be left to contractual regulation’.Industrial Law Journal51, 4 (2022), 955–966

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Jef Ausloos and Michael Veale. 2020. Researching with data rights.Amsterdam Law School Research Paper2020-30 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Tom Barratt, Caleb Goods, and Alex Veen. 2020. ‘I’m my own boss. . . ’: Active in- termediation and ‘entrepreneurial’worker agency in the Australian gig-economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space52, 8 (2020), 1643–1661

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Oliver Bates, Adrian Friday, Julian Allen, Tom Cherrett, Fraser McLeod, Tolga Bektas, ThuBa Nguyen, Maja Piecyk, Marzena Piotrowska, Sarah Wise, et al. 2018. Transforming last-mile logistics: Opportunities for more sustainable deliveries. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Abeba Birhane, Ryan Steed, Victor Ojewale, Briana Vecchione, and Inioluwa Deb- orah Raji. 2024. AI auditing: The broken bus on the road to AI accountability. In2024 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML). IEEE, 612–643

    2024

  6. [6]

    Laura Boeschoten, Jef Ausloos, Judith E Möller, Theo Araujo, and Daniel L Oberski

    work page

  7. [7]

    Abel Brodeur and Kerry Nield. 2018. An empirical analysis of taxi, Lyft and Uber rides: Evidence from weather shocks in NYC.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization152 (2018), 1–16

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accu- racy disparities in commercial gender classification. InConference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 77–91

    2018

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Dana 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 Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–24

    2022

  2. [10]

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

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2015. Peeking beneath the hood of uber. InProceedings of the 2015 internet measurement conference. 495–508. 7https://www.nyc.gov/site/tlc/about/tlc-trip-record-data.page, https://data. cityofchicago.org/Transportation/Transportation-N...

    2015

  4. [12]

    Lina Dencik, Jessica Brand, and Sarah Murphy. 2024. What do data rights do for workers? A critical analysis of trade union engagement with the datafied workplace.Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research(2024), 10242589241267006

    2024

  5. [13]

    Kimberly Do, Maya De Los Santos, Michael Muller, and Saiph Savage. 2024. Designing Gig Worker Sousveillance Tools. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  6. [14]

    Veena Dubal. 2023. The House Always Wins: The Algorithmic Gamblification of Work.Law and Political Economy Project, January23 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Worker Info Exchange. [n. d.]. Dying for data: how the gig economy public data deficit conceals £1.9 billion in wage theft, runaway carbon emissions and a health and safety catastrophe. https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/post/dying-for- data-how-the-gig-economy-public-data-def...

  8. [16]

    Cailean Gallagher, Karen Gregory, and Boyan Karabaliev. 2023. Digital worker inquiry and the critical potential of participatory worker data science for on- demand platform workers.New Technology, Work and Employment(2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Karen Gregory and Jathan Sadowski. 2021. Biopolitical platforms: the perverse virtues of digital labour.Journal of Cultural Economy14, 6 (2021), 662–674

    2021

  10. [18]

    At the end of the day, I am accountable

    Rie Helene, Qiurong Song, Yubo Kou, Xinning Gui, et al. 2024. " At the end of the day, I am accountable": Gig Workers’ Self-Tracking for Multi-Dimensional Accountability Management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19436(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jane Hsieh, Miranda Karger, Lucas Zagal, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. Co-Designing Al- ternatives for the Future of Gig Worker Well-Being: Navigating Multi-Stakeholder Incentives and Preferences. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 664–687

    2023

  12. [20]

    Eslam Hussein, Prerna Juneja, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Measuring misinfor- mation in video search platforms: An audit study on YouTube.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW1 (2020), 1–27

    2020

  13. [21]

    Basileal Imana, Aleksandra Korolova, and John Heidemann. 2021. Auditing for discrimination in algorithms delivering job ads. InProceedings of the web conference 2021. 3767–3778

    2021

  14. [22]

    Al James. 2021. The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction: By Jamie Woodcock and Mark GrahamCambridge: Polity Press, 2020

    2021

  15. [23]

    Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and PM Krafft. 2020. Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountabilit...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kalle Kusk and Claus Bossen. 2022. Working with wolt: an ethnographic study of lenient algorithmic management on a food delivery platform.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, GROUP (2022), 1–22

    2022

  17. [25]

    Min Kyung Lee. 2018. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fair- ness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management.Big Data & Society5, 1 (2018), 2053951718756684

    2018

  18. [26]

    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. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 1603–1612

    2015

  19. [27]

    My Sense of Morality Leads to My Suffering, Battling, and Arguing

    Shuhao Ma, John Zimmerman, Sarah E Fox, Valentina Nisi, and Nuno Jardim Nunes. 2024. " My Sense of Morality Leads to My Suffering, Battling, and Arguing": The Role of Platform Designers in (Un) Deciding Gig Worker Issues. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Sys...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nicholas Martindale, Alex J Wood, and Brendan J Burchell. 2024. What do platform workers in the UK gig economy want?British Journal of Industrial Relations(2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Karl Marx. 1867. The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. InCapital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, Frederick Engels (Ed.). Progress Publishers, Moscow, Chapter 25. Original work published in 1867

  22. [30]

    Morgan Meaker. 2024. Drivers Are Rising Up Against Uber’s ‘Opaque’ Pay System.Wired(2024). https://www.wired.com/story/drivers-are-rising-up- against-ubers-opaque-pay-system/

    2024

  23. [31]

    Morgan Meaker. 2025. ’Impossible’ to make ends meet, Uber drivers say.BBC (2025). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1elg0267p6o

    2025

  24. [32]

    Akshat Pandey and Aylin Caliskan. 2021. Disparate impact of artificial intelligence bias in ridehailing economy’s price discrimination algorithms. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 822–833

    2021

  25. [33]

    Christina Purcell and Paul Brook. 2022. At least I’m my own boss! Explaining consent, coercion and resistance in platform work.Work, Employment and Society 36, 3 (2022), 391–406

    2022

  26. [34]

    Rida Qadri and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Seeing like a driver: How workers repair, resist, and reinforce the platform’s algorithmic visions.Big Data & Society 9, 2 (2022), 20539517221133780

    2022

  27. [35]

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, SASHA COSTANZA Chock, and J Buolamwini. 2023. Change from the outside: Towards credible third-party audits of ai systems. Missing links in AI governance5 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Varun Nagaraj Rao, Samantha Dalal, Eesha Agarwal, Dana Calacci, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2024. Rideshare Transparency: Translating Gig Worker Insights on AI Platform Design to Policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10768(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asym- metries: A case study of Uber’s drivers.International journal of communication 10 (2016), 27

    2016

  30. [38]

    Trebor Scholz. 2016. Platform cooperativism.Challenging the corporate sharing economy. New York, NY: Rosa Luxemburg Foundation435 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Sebastian Klovig Skelton. 2023. Uber introduces dynamic pricing algorithm in London.Computer Weekly(2023). https://www.computerweekly.com/news/ 365531767/Uber-introduces-dynamic-pricing-algorithm-in-London

    2023

  32. [40]

    Jake Stein and Dana Calacci. 2022. Workers Collective Data Access Rights. (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Jake ML Stein, Vidminas Vizgirda, Max Van Kleek, Reuben Binns, Jun Zhao, Rui Zhao, Naman Goel, George Chalhoub, Wael S Albayaydh, and Nigel Shadbolt

  34. [42]

    Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery.Commun. ACM56, 5 (2013), 44–54

    2013

  35. [43]

    TFL. 2023. Taxi and private hire demographic statistics Dec 2023. (2023). https: //content.tfl.gov.uk/tph-demographic-stats-dec-2023.pdf

    2023

  36. [44]

    Alessandro Niccolò Tirapani and Hugh Willmott. 2023. Revisiting conflict: Ne- oliberalism at work in the gig economy.Human Relations76, 1 (2023), 53–86

    2023

  37. [45]

    Michael Veale, Reuben Binns, and Jef Ausloos. 2018. When data protection by design and data subject rights clash.International Data Privacy Law8, 2 (2018), 105–123

    2018

  38. [46]

    Michael Walker, Peter Fleming, and Marco Berti. 2021. ‘You can’t pick up a phone and talk to someone’: How algorithms function as biopower in the gig economy. Organization28, 1 (2021), 26–43

    2021

  39. [47]

    Miranda Wei, Madison Stamos, Sophie Veys, Nathan Reitinger, Justin Goodman, Margot Herman, Dorota Filipczuk, Ben Weinshel, Michelle L Mazurek, and Blase Ur. 2020. What Twitter knows: Characterizing ad targeting practices, user per- ceptions, and ad explanations through users’ ...

    2020

  40. [48]

    Christo Wilson, Avijit Ghosh, Shan Jiang, Alan Mislove, Lewis Baker, Janelle Szary, Kelly Trindel, and Frida Polli. 2021. Building and auditing fair algorithms: A case study in candidate screening. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Chun Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Algorithmic management reimagined for workers and by workers: Centering worker well-being in gig work. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–20

    2022

  42. [50]

    Angie Zhang, Rocita Rana, Alexander Boltz, Veena Dubal, and Min Kyung Lee

  43. [51]

    Rui Zhao, Naman Goel, Nitin Agrawal, Jun Zhao, Jake Stein, Ruben Verborgh, Reuben Binns, Tim Berners-Lee, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2023. Libertas: privacy- preserving computation for decentralised personal data stores.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16365(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zoe Zwiebelmann and Tristan Henderson. 2021. Data portability as a tool for audit. InAdjunct proceedings of the 2021 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2021 ACM international symposium on wearable computers. 276–280....

    2021

  45. [2022]

    A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation.Computational Communication Research4, 2 (2022), 388–423

    2022

  46. [2023]

    There’s nobody else

    ‘You are you and the app. There’s nobody else. ’: Building Worker-Designed Data Institutions within Platform Hegemony. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–26

    2023

  47. [2024]

    InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Data Probes as Boundary Objects for Technology Policy Design: Demys- tifying Technology for Policymakers and Aligning Stakeholder Objectives in Rideshare Gig Work. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

Pith tools

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