arxiv: 2605.11699 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

Auditing African Content Moderators' Working Conditions by Using the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Mariame Tighanimine , Jessica Pidoux , Sonia Kgomo , Kauna Ibrahim Malgwi , Richard Mwaura Mathenge , Mophat Okinyi , James Oyange

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.HC

keywords content moderationGDPRlabor rightsGlobal SouthBPOdata access requestsKenyaNigeria

0 comments

The pith

GDPR's extraterritorial scope lets African content moderators obtain hidden employment contracts and NDAs from BPO firms.

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

The paper establishes that European data protection rules reach companies in Kenya and Nigeria that handle data for EU platforms, enabling workers to request and receive employment contracts and nondisclosure agreements they had never seen. These documents supply concrete evidence of structural disadvantages and working conditions that violate basic rights. A reader would care because the approach converts an existing privacy statute into a practical instrument for documenting outsourced labor practices that platforms have kept opaque.

Core claim

The authors show that GDPR applies to Kenyan and Nigerian BPO firms because they process personal data on behalf of EU-linked platforms. Filing data subject access requests under the regulation produced employment contracts and NDAs that the workers had never received. The documents supply legally grounded evidence that these moderators face exploitative conditions which violate their rights and that the tech sector uses such arrangements to externalise labour costs while claiming its methods fall outside ordinary legal frameworks.

What carries the argument

GDPR data subject access requests applied to non-EU business process outsourcing firms that process data for European platforms

If this is right

Workers gain a concrete legal route to obtain contract terms previously withheld from them.
Documented evidence of rights violations in Global South outsourcing becomes available for regulatory or advocacy use.
Data protection statutes function as a cross-border tool to address labour accountability gaps.
Tech platforms' reliance on BPO arrangements to shift responsibility becomes harder to maintain under existing law.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar data-access tactics could be tested in other outsourcing sectors such as call centres or data annotation.
Collective filing of requests across multiple workers might strengthen the case that the patterns are systemic.
The method suggests data laws could support audits in additional countries where EU data flows support local BPO operations.

Load-bearing premise

GDPR applies to the Kenyan and Nigerian BPO firms because they process data for EU-linked platforms, and the contracts obtained through individual requests represent typical rather than exceptional conditions.

What would settle it

A court decision stating that GDPR does not require these African BPO companies to disclose employment contracts and NDAs to the workers, or an independent audit of a large sample of moderator contracts showing no pattern of rights violations.

read the original abstract

In this article, we audit the working conditions of content moderators in Kenya and Nigeria employed by business process outsourcing (BPO) companies by using the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We demonstrate its extraterritorial scope for gaining access to elements such as employment contracts and NDAs that have never been provided to the workers concerned. The results of this approach provide legally grounded evidence of the structural disadvantages faced by content moderators in the Global South, whose exploitative working conditions violate workers' rights. Our work also highlights the benefits of legislation aimed at protecting individuals' data rights as a counterweight to the tech industry's discourse of exceptionalism, which obscures its dependence on BPOs to externalise labour costs and accountability, whilst claiming that its products, business models, and methods of resource extraction are unprecedented and fall outside any existing legal framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper uses GDPR subject access requests to pull employment contracts from Kenyan and Nigerian content moderators, but the legal reach and the actual evidence both look thin.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors filed GDPR data subject access requests on behalf of content moderators in Kenya and Nigeria and obtained some employment contracts and NDAs that the workers had never seen. They present this as proof of structural disadvantages and rights violations in the outsourced moderation workforce that supports EU platforms. The approach is new in its documented application to these specific BPO sites, and it usefully connects data-protection tools to labor conditions in global tech supply chains. That link is worth noting because it offers a practical angle on how existing EU law might create leverage where local labor protections are weak. The paper also correctly flags the industry's habit of treating its operations as legally exceptional while relying on externalized labor. Those observations are grounded in the broader literature on digital work and do not overclaim novelty there. The execution, however, stays at the level of assertion. The abstract says the requests succeeded and produced evidence of violations, yet it supplies no account of request volume, response rates, refusal patterns, or the specific contract language that supposedly demonstrates exploitation. Without those details it is difficult to tell whether the documents are representative or atypical. The bigger problem is the legal premise. GDPR Article 3 limits the regulation to processing in the context of an EU establishment or targeting EU residents. The personal data in an employment contract between a Kenyan BPO and a Kenyan worker is local employment information, not EU-user data processing. Article 15 DSARs do not obviously extend to compelling disclosure of that material. The paper treats the obtained contracts as legally grounded evidence, but the stress-test concern about scope appears to hold on the information given. Readers working on platform accountability or extraterritorial regulation might still want to see the full case laid out. The work is coherent enough on its own terms to merit referee time, though any review would need to press hard on the methods section and the Article 3 analysis.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to audit the working conditions of content moderators in Kenya and Nigeria employed by BPO companies by leveraging the extraterritorial scope of the GDPR to obtain employment contracts and NDAs via data subject access requests, providing legally grounded evidence of structural disadvantages and exploitative conditions that violate workers' rights, while highlighting GDPR as a counterweight to tech exceptionalism.

Significance. If the legal mechanism holds, the work is significant for introducing a practical, document-based audit method using data protection law to access employment artifacts not previously available to workers in Global South BPOs serving EU platforms. The empirical approach grounded in external legal requests rather than internal derivations or parameters is a strength, offering potential for reproducible accountability tools in digital labor supply chains.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract asserts successful access and resulting evidence of violations, yet provides no details on request procedures, response rates, document analysis methods, or specific contract clauses. Without these, the link between the legal mechanism and the claimed structural evidence cannot be evaluated.
[Legal Framework / Methods] The central claim that the obtained contracts provide 'legally grounded evidence' of rights violations rests on GDPR applying to local employment contracts of non-EU workers. Article 3 limits scope to EU establishments or targeting/monitoring EU individuals, and the personal data in these contracts concerns local employment relationships rather than EU user data processing. The manuscript requires a dedicated legal analysis section explaining the basis for this application, including why DSAR rights under Article 15 extend to such documents.

minor comments (2)

[Results] The paper would benefit from clearer discussion of how the sampled contracts are representative of systemic practices rather than atypical cases.
[Introduction] Notation and terminology around 'extraterritorial scope' and 'BPO processors' could be defined more precisely with direct references to GDPR recitals or EDPB guidelines.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. The comments highlight important areas for clarification, particularly regarding the abstract's level of detail and the legal basis for applying GDPR to the obtained documents. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements, strengthening the overall contribution.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The abstract asserts successful access and resulting evidence of violations, yet provides no details on request procedures, response rates, document analysis methods, or specific contract clauses. Without these, the link between the legal mechanism and the claimed structural evidence cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from greater specificity to better connect the method to the findings. In the revised version, we will expand the abstract to briefly outline the DSAR procedures (including how requests were submitted to BPO companies in Kenya and Nigeria), report on the number of requests made and the response rate achieved, describe the qualitative document analysis approach used to identify structural issues, and highlight representative contract clauses evidencing rights violations. This will make the empirical link more transparent while maintaining the abstract's conciseness. revision: yes
Referee: [Legal Framework / Methods] The central claim that the obtained contracts provide 'legally grounded evidence' of rights violations rests on GDPR applying to local employment contracts of non-EU workers. Article 3 limits scope to EU establishments or targeting/monitoring EU individuals, and the personal data in these contracts concerns local employment relationships rather than EU user data processing. The manuscript requires a dedicated legal analysis section explaining the basis for this application, including why DSAR rights under Article 15 extend to such documents.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript would be strengthened by a more explicit legal analysis. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection under Legal Framework explaining the extraterritorial application. The BPO companies process personal data of EU data subjects through content moderation activities (monitoring and reviewing user-generated content from EU platforms), placing them within GDPR's territorial scope under Article 3(2). As entities subject to GDPR for these processing operations, they must comply with all GDPR obligations, including DSARs under Article 15, which grant data subjects access to personal data concerning them held by the controller—encompassing data in employment contracts and NDAs. We will support this with references to relevant GDPR provisions, EDPB guidelines on territorial scope, and the fact that the companies' overall compliance framework extends to employee data when the entity is already regulated. This section will also address potential counterarguments regarding the distinction between user data and employment data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical audit rests on external document requests and legal interpretation

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical audit of employment contracts and NDAs obtained via GDPR data-subject access requests from Kenyan and Nigerian BPOs. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-referential definitions appear in the provided abstract or description. The central claim—that the obtained artifacts supply legally grounded evidence of working conditions—depends on external legal requests and document review rather than any internal construction or self-citation chain. The skeptic's concern about GDPR territorial scope (Art. 3) and applicability to non-EU employment records is a question of legal correctness and external validity, not circularity. Per guidelines, self-contained empirical work against external benchmarks receives score 0 with no steps flagged.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the legal premise that GDPR subject-access rights extend to non-EU BPO firms handling data for EU platforms and that the resulting documents constitute representative evidence of rights violations.

axioms (1)

domain assumption GDPR has extraterritorial scope that obliges non-EU companies processing EU residents' data to respond to subject-access requests
Invoked to justify requesting contracts and NDAs from Kenyan and Nigerian BPOs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5474 in / 1328 out tokens · 85306 ms · 2026-05-13T05:24:16.954361+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 127 canonical work pages

[1]

Fairwork

2025. Fairwork. (2025). Fairwork AI Supply Chain Assessment: Sama 2025

work page 2025
[2]

The Gig Trap

2025. The Gig Trap. Algorithmic, Wage and Labor Exploitation in Platform Work in the US.Human Rights Watch05 (2025), 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Nuredin Ali Abdelkadir, Tianling Yang, Shivani Kapania, Meron Estefanos, Fasica Berhane Gebrekidan, Zecharias Zelalem, Messai Ali, Rishan Berhe, Dylan Baker, Zeerak Talat, et al. 2025. The Role of Expertise in Effectively Moderating Harmful Social Media Content. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

work page 2025
[4]

Halefom Abraha. 2025. Navigating workers’ data rights in the digital age: a historical, current, and future perspective on workers’ data protection. (2025)

work page 2025
[5]

Halefom H Abraha. 2022. A pragmatic compromise? The role of Article 88 GDPR in upholding privacy in the workplace.International Data Privacy Law12, 4 (2022), 276–296

work page 2022
[6]

Data Protection Africa. 2023. Which African countries have a data protection law?Data Protection Africa11 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Sana Ahmad and Martin Krzywdzinski. 2022. Moderating in obscurity: How Indian content moderators work in global content moderation value chains. InDigital work in the planetary market. Cambridge, MA, Ottawa: The MIT Press, International Development Research Centre, 77–95

work page 2022
[8]

Antonio Aloisi and Valerio De Stefano. 2022. Your boss is an algorithm. (2022)

work page 2022
[9]

Antonio Aloisi, Anne Joppe, and Halefom Abraha. 2025. From ‘general’to ‘context-specific’data protection for workers: Insights from the EU rules on platforms, algorithmic management and AI systems.European Labour Law Journal16, 4 (2025), 538–564

work page 2025
[10]

Mohammad Amir Anwar. 2025. Africa’s data workers are being exploited by foreign tech firms – 4 ways to protect them.The Conversation03 (2025)

work page 2025
[11]

Mohammad Amir Anwar. 2025. Value chains of AI: Data training firms, platforms, and workers. InThe Future of Labour. Routledge, 198–213

work page 2025
[12]

Mohammad Amir Anwar and Mark Graham. 2020. Digital labour at economic margins: African workers and the global information economy.Review of African Political Economy47, 163 (2020), 95–105

work page 2020
[13]

Mohammad Amir Anwar and Mark Graham. 2021. Between a rock and a hard place: Freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa.Competition & Change25, 2 (2021), 237–258

work page 2021
[14]

2022.The digital continent: Placing Africa in planetary networks of work

Mohammad Amir Anwar and Mark Graham. 2022.The digital continent: Placing Africa in planetary networks of work. Oxford University Press

work page 2022
[15]

Richard J Arneson. 1987. Meaningful work and market socialism.Ethics97, 3 (1987), 517–545

work page 1987
[16]

Andrew Arsht and Daniel Etcovitch. 2018. The human cost of online content moderation.Harvard Journal of Law and Technology2 (2018)

work page 2018
[17]

Kirstie Ball. 2010. Workplace surveillance: An overview.Labor History51, 1 (2010), 87–106

work page 2010
[18]

2025.The AI con: How to fight big tech’s hype and create the future we want

Emily M Bender and Alex Hanna. 2025.The AI con: How to fight big tech’s hype and create the future we want. Random House

work page 2025
[19]

2018.Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world

Janine Berg, Marianne Furrer, Ellie Harmon, Uma Rani, and M Six Silberman. 2018.Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. ILO

work page 2018
[20]

Sophie Bernard. [n. d.]. Uberization and Overexploitation. ([n. d.])

work page
[21]

2024.The shadow of the mine: Coal and the end of industrial Britain

Huw Beynon and Ray Hudson. 2024.The shadow of the mine: Coal and the end of industrial Britain. Verso Books

work page 2024
[22]

Reuben Binns, Jake Stein, Siddhartha Datta, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2025. Not Even Nice Work If You Can Get It; A Longitudinal Study of Uber’s Algorithmic Pay and Pricing. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1484–1497

work page 2025
[23]

Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Christopher Graziul, Leif Hancox-Li, Hananel Hazan, El-Mahdi El-Mhamdi, Avijit Ghosh, Katherine A Heller, Jacob Metcalf, Fabricio Murai, Eryk Salvaggio, Andrew J Smart, Todd Snider, Mariame Tighanimine, Talia Ringer, Margaret Mitchell, and Shiri Dori-Hacohen. 2025. Position: Stop treating ‘AGI’ as the north-star goal of AI research....

work page 2025
[24]

Robert Booth and Caroline Kimeu. 2024. PTSD, depression and anxiety: why former Facebook moderators in Kenya are taking legal action.The Guardian12 (2024), 2024

work page 2024
[25]

1977.Algérie 60

Pierre Bourdieu. 1977.Algérie 60. Éditions de Minuit

work page 1977
[26]

2020.The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world

Anu Bradford. 2020.The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press

work page 2020
[27]

Christopher Brown. 2025. AI’s Voracious Appetite for Data Imperils Key Privacy Principles.Bloomberg Law10 (2025), 2025

work page 2025
[28]

2024.Feeding the machine: The hidden human labor powering AI

Callum Cant, James Muldoon, and Mark Graham. 2024.Feeding the machine: The hidden human labor powering AI. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada Tighanimine et al

work page 2024
[29]

Callum Cant, Funda Ustek Spilda, Lola Brittain, and Mark Graham. 2023. Fairwork AI Ratings 2023: The Workers Behind AI at Sama. Report

work page 2023
[30]

Srravya Chandhiramowuli, Alex S Taylor, Sara Heitlinger, and Ding Wang. 2024. Making data work count.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–26

work page 2024
[31]

Julie Chen and Cheryll Ruth Soriano. 2022. How do workers survive and thrive in the platform economy? Evidence from China and the Philippines. (2022)

work page 2022
[32]

2002.Strikes and solidarity: Coalfield conflict in Britain, 1889-1966

Roy A Church and Quentin Outram. 2002.Strikes and solidarity: Coalfield conflict in Britain, 1889-1966. Cambridge University Press

work page 2002
[33]

Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale. 2025. Arrêt n°22-23.639. Legifrance. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000051464923

work page 2025
[34]

Bart Custers and Helena Ursic. 2017. Worker privacy in a digitalized world under european law.Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J.39 (2017), 323

work page 2017
[35]

Guy Davidov. 2025. A Theory of the Contract of Employment.Industrial Law Journal(2025), dwaf031

work page 2025
[36]

Valerio De Stefano and Simon Taes. 2023. Algorithmic management and collective bargaining.Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research29, 1 (2023), 21–36

work page 2023
[37]

Simon Deakin. 2011. The contribution of labour law to economic and human development.The idea of labour law(2011), 156–175

work page 2011
[38]

Mark Díaz, Isaac Johnson, Amanda Lazar, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle. 2018. Addressing age-related bias in sentiment analysis. InProceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

work page 2018
[39]

Claude Didry. 2013. L’approche par les capacités comme registre des restructurations: un nouveau regard sur l’entreprise et le contrat de travail?Revue française de sociologie54, 3 (2013), 537–566

work page 2013
[40]

Claude Didry. 2021. Le contrat de travail, une révolution symbolique.Sociologie du droit du travail(2021)

work page 2021
[41]

Niels van Doorn. 2020. At what price? Labour politics and calculative power struggles in on-demand food delivery.Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation14, 1 (2020), 136–149

work page 2020
[42]

El-Mahdi El-Mhamdi, Lê-Nguyên Hoang, and Mariame Tighanimine. 2025. A Case for Specialisation in Non-Human Entities.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society8, 1 (Oct. 2025), 824–837. doi:10.1609/aies.v8i1.36593

work page doi:10.1609/aies.v8i1.36593 2025
[43]

2022.Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces: how to recognise and avoid them

European Data Protection Board. 2022.Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces: how to recognise and avoid them. Technical Report. European Data Protection Board. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our- documents/guidelines/guidelines-032022-deceptive-design-patterns-social-media_en

work page 2022
[44]

Agency for Fundamental Rights

European Union. Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2010.Data Protection in the European Union: The Role of National Data Protection Authorities: Strengthening the Fundamental Rights Architecture in the EU II. Publications Office of the European Union

work page 2010
[45]

Uri Gal. 2024. OpenAI’s data hunger raises privacy concerns.The Conversation09 (2024), 2024

work page 2024
[46]

Charlotte Garden. 2018. Labor organizing in the age of surveillance.. Louis ULJ63 (2018), 55

work page 2018
[47]

Fasica B Gebrekidan. 2024. Content moderation: The harrowing, traumatizing job that left many African data workers with mental health issues and drug dependency.The Data Workers’ Inquiry. https://data-workers. org/fasica(2024)

work page 2024
[48]

2018.Research, ethics and risk in the authoritarian field

Marlies Glasius, Meta De Lange, Jos Bartman, Emanuela Dalmasso, Aofei Lv, Adele Del Sordi, Marcus Michaelsen, and Kris Ruijgrok. 2018.Research, ethics and risk in the authoritarian field. Springer Nature

work page 2018
[49]

Graham Greenleaf. 2023. Global data privacy laws 2023: 162 national laws and 20 bills. (2023)

work page 2023
[50]

Renata Grossi. 2025. NDAs: Legally unenforceable or just unethical? A contract law perspective.Alternative Law Journal50, 4 (2025), 284–290

work page 2025
[51]

Harald Hauben, Karolien Lenaerts, and Willem Waeyaert. 2020. The platform economy and precarious work.The platform economy and precarious work(2020)

work page 2020
[52]

M Heikkilä. 2023. OpenAI’s hunger for data is coming back to bite it.MIT Technology Review(2023)

work page 2023
[53]

Erica Hellerstein. 2023. Silicon Savanna: The workers taking on Africa’s digital sweatshops.Coda Story10 (2023), 2023

work page 2023
[54]

Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Remi Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell

work page
[55]

InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency

Towards accountability for machine learning datasets: Practices from software engineering and infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 560–575

work page 2021
[56]

ILO. 2024. Supply Chains Evidence Map.Decent Work in Supply Chains Evidence Hub. https://supplychainshub.ilo.org/(2024)

work page 2024
[57]

Amnesty International. 2025. Breaking up with Big Tech: A human rights-based argument for tackling Big Tech’s market power

work page 2025
[58]

Sonia Kgomo. 2025. I was a content moderator for Facebook. I saw the real cost of outsourcing digital labour.The Guardian12 (2025), 2025

work page 2025
[59]

Wenlong Li and Jill Toh. 2022. Data Subject Rights as a Tool for Platform Worker Resistance: Lessons from the Uber/Ola Judgments. SSRN Electronic Journal(2022). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4306868

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4306868 2022
[60]

René L. P. Mahieu, Hadi Asghari, and Michel van Eeten. 2018. Collectively exercising the right of access: individual effort, societal effect.Internet Policy Review7, 3 (2018). doi:10.14763/2018.3.927

work page doi:10.14763/2018.3.927 2018
[61]

K Malgwi. 2025. A Mental Health Intervention for Data Workers.The Data Workers ‘Inquiry. https://dataworkers. org/kauna(2025)

work page 2025
[62]

Elizabeth Marsh, Elvira Perez Vallejos, and Alexa Spence. 2024. Overloaded by information or worried about missing out on it: A quantitative study of stress, burnout, and mental health implications in the digital workplace.Sage Open14, 3 (2024), 21582440241268830. Auditing African Content Moderators’ Working Conditions FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montrea...

work page 2024
[63]

Milagros Miceli, Adio-Adet Dinika, Krystal Kauffman, Camilla Salim Wagner, Laurenz Sachenbacher, Alex Hanna, and Timnit Gebru

work page
[64]

InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol

Methodological Considerations for Centering Workers’ Epistemic Authority in AI Research. InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 8. 1698–1710

work page
[65]

Milagros Miceli and Julian Posada. 2022. The data-production dispositif.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–37

work page 2022
[66]

2024.Who Trains the Data for European Artificial Intelligence?Ph

Milagros Miceli, Paola Tubaro, Antonio A Casilli, Thomas Le Bonniec, Camilla Salim Wagner, and Laurenz Sachenbacher. 2024.Who Trains the Data for European Artificial Intelligence?Ph. D. Dissertation. European Parliament; The Left

work page 2024
[67]

Milagros Miceli, Tianling Yang, Laurens Naudts, Martin Schuessler, Diana Serbanescu, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Documenting computer vision datasets: an invitation to reflexive data practices. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on Fairness, Accountability, and transparency. 161–172

work page 2021
[68]

Dan Milmo. 2022. Tech firms becoming ‘too big to govern’, says Uber whistleblower.The Guardian11 (2022)

work page 2022
[69]

Timothy Mitchell. 2009. Carbon democracy.Economy and society38, 3 (2009), 399–432

work page 2009
[70]

James Muldoon, Callum Cant, Mark Graham, and Funda Ustek Spilda. 2025. The poverty of ethical AI: impact sourcing and AI supply chains.AI & society40, 2 (2025), 529–543

work page 2025
[71]

James Muldoon, Callum Cant, Boxi Wu, and Mark Graham. 2024. A typology of artificial intelligence data work.Big data & society11, 1 (2024), 20539517241232632

work page 2024
[72]

James Muldoon, Ana Valdivia, and Adam Badger. 2025. The politics of artificial intelligence supply chains.AI & SOCIETY(2025), 1–13

work page 2025
[73]

Evelyne Musambi. 2024. Facebook loses jurisdiction appeal in Kenyan court paving the way for moderators’ case to proceed.The Independent09 (2024), 2024

work page 2024
[74]

Gemma Newlands. 2021. Lifting the curtain: Strategic visibility of human labour in AI-as-a-Service.Big Data & Society8, 1 (2021), 20539517211016026

work page 2021
[75]

Aiha Nguyen. 2021. The constant boss: Work under digital surveillance. (2021)

work page 2021
[76]

noyb. 2024. EU Commission about to wreck core principles of the GDPR. https://noyb.eu/en/eu-commission-about-wreck-core- principles-gdpr Accessed: [your access date]

work page 2024
[77]

Sarah OĆonnor. 2022. Farewell to the servant economy.Financial Times14 (2022)

work page 2022
[78]

President of the Republic of Kenya. 2024. Government’s plan to create 1 million jobs

work page 2024
[79]

Ajeet Kumar Pankaj and Manish K Jha. 2024. Gig workers in precarious life: The trajectory of exploitation, insecurity, and resistance. American Journal of Economics and Sociology83, 5 (2024), 935–946

work page 2024
[80]

Jiaxin Pei and David Jurgens. 2023. When do annotator demographics matter? measuring the influence of annotator demographics with the POPQUORN dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06826(2023)

work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.