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

111–120 of 161 posts

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

#111

Post by astrange »

tbrownaw wrote: post #48
astrange wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Oh, I thought it was because "push button to summon car" is, like, super convenient.

There were taxi apps before Uber and they didn't work because the taxi drivers wouldn't reliably come.

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

#112

Post by astrange »

imtringued wrote: post #50
astrange wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People use platforms because it would be very silly to have an app on the play store for each driver.

If there was a driver you trusted then you could text them or their taxi dispatcher. The problem is they won't come, will scam you, won't take you to a poor neighborhood, etc.

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

#113

Post by croemer »

alwa wrote: post #96
croemer wrote: post #93

> The system used optical character recognition—the same technology that lets you search for a word in a PDF file That's not correct, at least for "digitally-born PDFs" that were made on a computer and haven't been scanned. In that case, the PDF can be parsed directly, without OCR, to get text. That's what a tool like PyPDF2 does, for example.

It sounds like they were parsing screenshots that workers submitted by SMS

I'm not disputing that they used OCR. What's wrong is that searching text in PDFs doesn't usually involve OCR.

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

#114

Post by lmm »

SoftTalker wrote: post #107
alwa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious: would you have felt better if Uber had just rejected your ride request upfront (“Sorry, we can’t offer rides that far” or something)? Or is this attitude of “hey, it’s a long shot, but let’s give it a try and see if anybody takes the job” closer to the attitude you’d like to see? If the latter, how would you communicate that to the users? I had an occasion a long time ago where I needed to request an Ube…

Driving an EV at 110mph is going to sap the range horrendously. The power needed to overcome air resistance/drag is proportional to the cube of the speed.

It'll sap the range of any kind of vehicle, but refilling an EV is a whole lot cheaper, so higher speeds are more economic for an EV than a petrol car. (Assuming you don't reach the point of running out in the middle of a shift of course)

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

#116

Post by brokenmachine »

russdill wrote: post #73
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

This is very insightful. I knew there was something wrong with the whole thing but that explains it exactly.

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

#117

Post by demondemidi »

alwa wrote: post #95
demondemidi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to fly into Pittsburg and take an Uber to my grandparents house 40 miles away. For years I could always get an Uber but then after the pandemic my trip was rejected so frequently that I had to start renting a car. So basically no one wanted the gig and Uber never told me my ride was unreasonable. Something changed in the algorithm to benefit drivers, Uber, or both, at the expense of the customer, and that info…

I’m curious: would you have felt better if Uber had just rejected your ride request upfront (“Sorry, we can’t offer rides that far” or something)? Or is this attitude of “hey, it’s a long shot, but let’s give it a try and see if anybody takes the job” closer to the attitude you’d like to see? If the latter, how would you communicate that to the users? I had an occasion a long time ago where I needed to request an Ube…

I expect the service to tell me upfront if my request is not serviceable, and not push it on to drivers. Don’t advertise if you can’t deliver. And be fucking consistent.

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

#118

Post by EnigmaFlare »

febeling wrote: post #15
or_am_i wrote: post #3

I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…

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.

They had been transparent and it led to workers finding loopholes to make it unfair on each other. So there is value in opaqueness in that it's harder to exploit. But really a properly fair and transparent system would be better still.

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

#119

Post by strictnein »

jtriangle wrote: post #86

>60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers Absolutely pathetic investigative journalism on display. This is a hit piece thinly veiled under the guise of being pro worker that fails to support the main point of algorithmic management of gig workers is worse for everyone but the corporation em…

Really surprising coming from an org like IEEE. One expected the data to show a significantly detrimental effect, but it looks like it was slightly positive overall, at least based on the data they're displaying.

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

#120

Post by SkyPuncher »

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.

I don’t think that’s how I view it.

The service provides a large pool of people that ensure the service is delivered. However, I have a preference for a certain group of people to provide that service. I tip well and consistently get service from my preferred shoppers. When they don’t take it, it falls to the general pool and is picked up quickly.

I personally just care that my groceries get shopped for me. Having someone who already knows my preference is just a small perk.

Post reply on HN