4 ms·
Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to workers and weakening their protections. It is more like a kind of gatekeeper discus
by sebst 12y ago
Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to workers and weakening their protections.
It is more like a kind of gatekeeper discussion. Digitalization has moved the gate keeper role from media dinosaurs to agile startups and companies.
Uber can de-activate their users as well as Facebook can reduce organic visibility of fan pages or Google may kick you out of their index. The open internet that we have is still built upon the gate keeper behavior.
In the Uber case that clearly affects individuals, like taxi drivers, but in the case of Facebook, Twitter and Uber that can affect large companies, too.
So, may I read this article also as a manifest against "attention" monopolists?
- ngpio 12y ago> Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to workers and weakening their protections. Jacobin articles are rarely 'about' anything. Their primary mode of reasoning is like folk etymology on a discourse level. There's usually a fair amount of factual evidence included, but it's forced through a narrative -- that's there for the sake of appearing novel -- into a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from anything presented. (I haven't read this one yet, but if it's anything like Against Chairs[1], my criticism should apply. Admittedly I'm doing the same thing in this comment that I'm criticizing Jacobin for doing.) [1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/against-chairs/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/against-chairs/