Platform economy runs on control, but workers are fighting back

Formal resistance, including protests, strikes, coordinated logoffs, and legal action, is less common but plays a critical role in shaping long-term outcomes. The study finds that formal resistance is more likely to emerge in location-based platforms, where workers share physical spaces and can disrupt local services.

Digital labor platforms have reshaped how work is organized across the global economy, promising flexibility, autonomy, and new income opportunities. Ride-hailing, food delivery, freelance marketplaces, and microtask platforms now employ millions of workers worldwide, many of whom rely on algorithmic systems to access jobs, set prices, and evaluate performance. However, new research shows that the same algorithms that enable scale and efficiency are increasingly used to exert control over workers, narrowing autonomy and heightening economic insecurity.

The study Resilience through Resistance: the Role of Worker Agency in Navigating Algorithmic Control, published in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, examines how platform workers respond to algorithmic management not as passive recipients of control, but as active agents who develop strategies of resistance to protect their livelihoods and well-being. Drawing on academic literature and extensive ILO surveys conducted between 2017 and 2023, the study offers a global, cross-sector analysis of how workers navigate the expanding reach of algorithmic power.

How platforms tighten control through algorithms

In their early stages, platforms compete aggressively for workers by offering bonuses, flexible schedules, and easy entry. Venture capital subsidies allow companies to operate at a loss while building network effects, drawing in both workers and customers. This period of expansion creates dependency, as workers restructure their livelihoods around platform access.

Once platforms achieve market dominance and worker lock-in, the study finds, their strategies shift. Incentives are reduced, and algorithmic management systems are introduced or intensified. These systems automate core managerial functions such as task allocation, performance evaluation, pricing, and discipline. Ratings, automated deactivations, dynamic pricing, and behavioral nudges become central tools for governing work.

Algorithmic control affects workers across sectors, but its form varies. Online freelancers and microtask workers face opaque task allocation systems, sudden rejections of completed work, and ratings that directly affect access to future jobs. Location-based workers such as taxi and delivery drivers encounter dynamic pricing schemes, gamified incentives, and automated penalties that influence when, where, and how long they work.

The study emphasizes that algorithmic control is not technologically inevitable. It is a strategic choice designed to maximize productivity, unpaid labor time, and platform profits. By embedding control into software systems, platforms can manage large, dispersed workforces without traditional supervisors, while limiting transparency and accountability. Workers often experience these systems as faceless and unpredictable, making it difficult to contest decisions or understand how outcomes are determined.

The result is a widening power imbalance. Workers shoulder greater risks, including income volatility, unpaid waiting time, and the constant threat of deactivation, while platforms consolidate control over data, pricing, and access to work.

Informal resistance as a foundation of resilience

Despite these constraints, the study finds that workers do not simply submit to algorithmic management. Informal resistance emerges as the most widespread and accessible form of agency, particularly in contexts where formal collective action is difficult.

Social media platforms and online forums play a central role. Workers use messaging apps, discussion boards, and informal groups to share information about algorithm changes, identify profitable working hours or locations, warn others about unfair practices, and exchange strategies for avoiding penalties. These spaces function as digital support networks, allowing workers to collectively interpret opaque systems.

Across sectors, workers develop tactics to counter algorithmic control over access to work. Online workers use tools such as virtual private networks to bypass geographic restrictions and access higher-paying tasks. Some create or purchase alternative accounts to navigate qualification barriers. Location-based workers operate across multiple platforms simultaneously, compare offers in real time, or strategically reject low-value tasks to protect earnings.

Workers also resist algorithmic monitoring and evaluation. Freelancers and service workers sometimes move transactions off-platform, negotiating directly with clients to avoid commission fees and ratings systems. Others manipulate ratings by coordinating reviews, sharing accounts, or selectively accepting tasks that minimize the risk of negative feedback. While these practices carry risks, they reflect calculated efforts to regain autonomy within restrictive systems.

The study highlights that informal resistance is not random or purely individual. It is shaped by shared knowledge, peer learning, and collective experience. These everyday acts of resistance allow workers to stabilize income, reduce stress, and maintain a sense of control over their work, even when structural power remains limited.

Importantly, the study reframes these behaviors not as rule-breaking or deviance, but as resilience-building strategies. In environments where formal protections are weak or absent, informal resistance becomes a necessary means of survival.

Formal resistance and the limits of collective power

Formal resistance, including protests, strikes, coordinated logoffs, and legal action, is less common but plays a critical role in shaping long-term outcomes. The study finds that formal resistance is more likely to emerge in location-based platforms, where workers share physical spaces and can disrupt local services.

Taxi and delivery workers, in particular, have engaged in visible collective actions across multiple countries. These actions are often motivated by pay cuts, changes to bonus structures, or unfair deactivations. In some cases, sustained mobilization has led to regulatory reforms, collective agreements, and greater transparency around algorithmic management.

The study brings to light the significant barriers to formal resistance. Platform workers are frequently classified as self-employed, limiting access to traditional labor protections and collective bargaining rights. Geographic dispersion, high worker turnover, and fear of retaliation further weaken organizing capacity. Union membership among platform workers remains low, especially in developing countries.

Platforms often respond to resistance by tightening control. The study documents instances where companies refine algorithms to detect dissent, impose shadow penalties that quietly reduce access to work, or deactivate workers involved in organizing. This cycle of action and counteraction illustrates the dynamic nature of algorithmic governance, where control and resistance continuously evolve.

Despite these challenges, the study shows that formal resistance can amplify the effects of informal strategies. Online communities often serve as incubators for collective action, transforming shared grievances into coordinated demands. Even when immediate gains are limited, formal resistance raises public awareness and increases pressure on platforms and regulators.

Redefining resilience in the platform economy

Resilience is built through deliberate actions that challenge, adapt to, and sometimes transform the conditions imposed by algorithmic control. This process is neither linear nor guaranteed. Workers may experience temporary gains followed by new forms of control. Success depends on multiple factors, including sector-specific dynamics, local labor markets, regulatory environments, and access to collective resources. The study cautions against romanticizing resistance, noting that it often comes with costs, including stress, income loss, and retaliation.

The research also challenges narratives that portray algorithmic management as totalizing or unassailable. Algorithms rely on human labor and participation. Workers’ ability to interpret, manipulate, and contest these systems reveals cracks in platform power and opportunities for intervention.

Furthermore, the study also highlights the role of institutions. Regulatory frameworks, collective agreements, and public accountability mechanisms can strengthen worker resilience by limiting abusive practices and increasing transparency. Examples from Europe demonstrate that policy interventions can reshape algorithmic governance, even in highly digitalized sectors.