Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 161 posts

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#71

Post by cess11 »

hprotagonist wrote: post #65
braza wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely I have thought about this topic for a while at the time that I worked with Law data (e.g. Family Law and Military Law), and I just came to the conclusion that several societal institutions and it's agents are inher…

I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top Let’s re-audit the algorithm regularly; say, perhaps, a central committee revisits and revises the plan every 5 years?

I'm not so sure the corporation will survive if humans do.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#72

Post by ddulaney »

mft_ wrote: post #29
febeling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had similar thoughts. But let's not overlook the information asymmetry, which contributed to the dissatisfaction. I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely, and also don't think it necessary to explain how they think so highly of themselves.

It's an interesting question, as we have a spectrum from 'little to no transparency' through to 'full transparency' (which is pretty rare), and in the middle sits the usual approach of 'communications-team-led messaged quasi-transparency'. Difficult to know (without more info) where Shipt would have appeared on this spectrum, but given the issue, they're probably somewhere towards the 'insufficient transparency' end.…

I think the issue is that there was full transparency on pay (a fixed base rate plus a fixed percentage) and then it was changed without warning.

I work for a salary, which is fully transparent in the sense that I know what my next paycheck will be to the penny. (It’s not transparent in how it’s set, but it is week-to-week.) If my employer started paying me based on effort, and didn’t tell me what constituted effort, not only would I be pissed off but that would be completely illegal.

I’m not suggesting that this change is or should be illegal. But if it happened to me I’d find it extremely unfair.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#73

Post by russdill »

theptip wrote: post #51

A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…

We are entering an era where corporations have perfect data. They can charge each customer exactly the maximum amount possible, and pay each worker the exact minimum amount possible

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#74

Post by error_logic »

cryptonym wrote: post #34
londons_explore wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> choose whether or not they want to accept an order." If the app shows clearly what needs to be done (shop, order list, miles driven), and the pay the worker will earn, and asks if they want to accept, then IMO that's fine. The business can set those offers however they like, even using a random number generator if they want, and IMO it's morally fine.

They can set offers however they like and you are free to not accept. If the algorithm detects that you are likely to accept for little money and short you with lower offers compared to other users, is it still morally fine?

This runs into both the ideals and the limitations of the Free Market.

Ideally, there's incentive for people to collectively reach the most efficient solution through aggregated laziness and greed.

In practice, people only have so much bandwidth and shortcuts will be taken, options will be overlooked, and people will exploit or be exploited due to the blinders either put on willingly or forced on them--on top of our natural capacity for observing reality no matter how much information is provided.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#75

Post by karaterobot »

dsr_ wrote: post #44
SkyPuncher wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they do. We use Shipt regularly and it’s a bit different than the other delivery apps. I now have a collection of favorite shoppers. While jobs still go to the pool, these people have a first shot at my order. I’ve learned the general availability of my favorites and tend to place orders when I think there’s a high chance they’ll be available to shop the order. While it’s still not me selecting an individual…

So... they've turned it from "we provide a good quality service at a fair price" to "over time you will have a chance to pick favorites, but not consistently". That's enshittification for your use of the service, and enshittification for the workers, too.

It sounds like a nice feature for users and an advantage for workers.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#76

Post by error_logic »

lupire wrote: post #38
cryptonym wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can set offers however they like and you are free to not accept. If the algorithm detects that you are likely to accept for little money and short you with lower offers compared to other users, is it still morally fine?

Unsure, but why would they do that? Why risk paying more by making a higher offer elsewhere before making a lower offer?

Look to two-tailed tests when a flipside doesn't make sense.

Consider what risk might exist if you fear overpaying so much that you make a lowball offer yet someone feels compelled to accept. The product or service might be "done" but in a way that screws you over in the long run as well.

Trust is earned, and it flows both ways.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#77

Post by Aurornis »

astrange wrote: post #46
gabesullice wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the question. All the ethical concerns are almost superfluous if the provider knows how much they're gonna earn, at a minimum, before they accept the gig. It's either worth it to them or it isn't. If anything shoud be a regulation, this feels like the one to add: platform opportunities must estimate and prominently display the estimated time to complete the task and the minimum payout after platform fees.

Uber doesn't do that because the drivers wouldn't take ones they don't like. Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

> Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

I don’t understand where these complex theories about ride sharing apps come from.

People use Uber because it’s easy and it’s an app. Taxis did not have a universal app at the time.

If you talk to young Uber users, chances are they wouldn’t actually know how to call a traditional taxi if you asked. It’s either Uber or Lyft because those are the apps they’ve heard about.

Also, it’s common for drivers to work for both Uber and Lyft at different points, maybe the same time. There’s no real element of trust difference between the two options.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#78

Post by alias_neo »

fallingfrog wrote: post #68

“There’s no technical reason why these algorithms need to be black boxes; the real reason is to maintain the power structure.” I’m kind of amazed that the article has the courage to say this out loud. The New York Times or any mainstream publication would never have been so honest. If anything they would have said some weasel words like “some ex-associates of shipt have complained that the app’s compensation system i…

> I’m kind of amazed that the article has the courage to say this out loud. The New York Times or any mainstream publication would never have been so honest.

It's the IEEE, (we) Engineers are known for having an aversion to bullshit, and just for straight-up having no filter. I wish more of the world worked that way.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#79

Post by theptip »

biftek wrote: post #60
theptip wrote: post #51

A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…

No, you ideally want all the jobs to be good. With the old model it was clear what the floor for getting something delivered was. Target could have instead adjusted order minimums or shrunk delivery zones instead. Gamifying peoples livelihood is the problem.

> you ideally want all the jobs to be good

That is… exactly the point I made, when I said:

> you don’t want jobs that are strictly better

Preference optionality is widely stated to be one of the features that gig workers like about the arrangement.

The options you suggest are also valid ways of homogenizing the jobs to reduce variance.

> Gamifying peoples livelihood is the problem

To be clear Game Theory applies to all economic interactions. Mechanism Design is the branch of Game Theory pertaining to market design to achieve desired outcomes, such as “avoid adverse selection in my gig work marketplace”.

Gamification is a specific application of video game design to economic interactions, it’s unrelated to what I’m discussing. (Examples of Gamification would be gaining experience points and levels for delivery, daily checking rewards, achievement badges, etc. - the general goal in Gamification is setting up a dopamine loop to encourage repeat use of the app. Hopefully it’s clear this is not what I was talking about.)

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#80

Post by AlexandrB »

theptip wrote: post #51

A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…

Is it really a marketplace if some central authority is controlling which customers get matched to which vendors? Sounds like central planning.
Post reply on HN