José Luis Molina et al. explore the ethical implications of microwork, a novel form of labor facilitated by digital platforms. The authors articulate the nuanced dynamics of this field, focusing primarily on the asymmetrical power relations between microworkers, clients, and platform operators. The piece scrutinizes the transactional nature of microwork, where workers are subject to the platform’s regulations and risk the arbitrary denial of payment or termination of their accounts. Microworkers’ reputation, determined by their prior task success rate, often dictates the quality and quantity of tasks they receive, creating a system of algorithmic governance that perpetuates an exploitative dynamic.
The authors further illustrate this situation by examining the biomedical research standards developed in the aftermath of World War II, which they argue are ill-equipped to address the ethical quandaries posed by microwork. They argue that the conditions of microwork, such as lack of payment floors and the potential for anonymity and segmentation, exacerbate the vulnerability of these workers, aligning them more closely with the exploitation of vulnerable populations in traditional research contexts. They propose a reconceptualization of microworkers as “guest workers” in “digital autocracies,” where the platforms exercise a quasi-governmental control over the working conditions, identity, and compensation of the microworkers.
The authors posit that these digital autocracies extract value through “heteromation” – a process where labor is mediated between cheap human labor and computers, and through the appropriation of workers’ rights to privacy and personal data protection. They argue that microwork platforms, due to their transnational nature and lack of comprehensive regulation, can impose conditions on their workforce that would be unacceptable in traditional employment contexts. They stress the importance of recognizing microworkers as vulnerable populations in research ethics reviews and propose a set of criteria for researchers to ensure the protection of these workers’ rights.
Positioning microwork within the broader philosophical discourse, the authors’ analysis suggests a reevaluation of labor, autonomy, and ethical standards in the digital age. The “digital autocracies” mirror Foucault’s concept of biopower, where power is exerted not merely through coercion but through the management and control of life processes, in this case, the economic existence of microworkers. The situation also reflects Marx’s concept of alienation, as microworkers are distanced from the fruits of their labor, the process of their work, and their fellow workers. The algorithmic governance system also raises questions about agency and autonomy, echoing concerns raised by philosophers such as Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas regarding the instrumentalization of human beings.
Future research in this domain could explore multiple avenues. First, a more extensive empirical study could be conducted to quantify and analyze the conditions of microworkers across different platforms and geographical regions. Second, a comparative study could be undertaken to examine how different regulatory environments impact the working conditions and rights of microworkers. Lastly, a philosophical exploration of notions such as autonomy, justice, and dignity within the digital labor context could provide a more profound understanding of this emerging labor paradigm. The complex interplay of labor, ethics, technology, and globalization, as exemplified by microwork, provides a rich and crucial area for futures studies.
Abstract
Scientific research is growingly increasingly reliant on “microwork” or “crowdsourcing” provided by digital platforms to collect new data. Digital platforms connect clients and workers, charging a fee for an algorithmically managed workflow based on Terms of Service agreements. Although these platforms offer a way to make a living or complement other sources of income, microworkers lack fundamental labor rights and basic safe working conditions, especially in the Global South. We ask how researchers and research institutions address the ethical issues involved in considering microworkers as “human participants.” We argue that current scientific research fails to treat microworkers in the same way as in-person human participants, producing de facto a double morality: one applied to people with rights acknowledged by states and international bodies (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration), the other to guest workers of digital autocracies who have almost no rights at all. We illustrate our argument by drawing on 57 interviews conducted with microworkers in Spanish-speaking countries.
Research Ethics in the Age of Digital Platforms