Brutal transparency and gentle confinement: how collaborative platforms control you
“In our society, to access goods and services, you need the right codes—both literally and figuratively. A QR code, a digital code, a password, a barcode, or a magnetic card…”
Benjamin Benoit, University of Perpignan; Agnès Mazars-Chapelon, University of Montpellier; Fabienne Villeseque-Dubus, University of Perpignan and Gérald Naro, University of Montpellier
This is what Pascal Lardellier and Sonia Zannad highlighted in an article from The Conversation’s “Cult Objects” series. While our parents have always been familiar with cultural or fashion “codes”—which vary depending on location and the societies in question—today’s codes are also digital and apply to everyone, everywhere. Fifty years after the invention of the barcode, QR codes have burst into our personal lives: from proof of COVID-19 vaccination to event ticketing and travel permits during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, they have quickly become part of our daily lives.
Today, “knowing the ropes” more broadly evokes the idea of a human existence that has shifted into a world characterized by the ubiquity of personal data: administrative documents, online browsing, social media activity… All of this collected data, which makes it possible to track individuals’ behavior, is the lifeblood of commercial collaborative platforms, such as—to name just the best-known ones—the rental property site Airbnb, the ride-sharing platform Blablacar, or apps for independent drivers.
They all tout their collaborative nature. But are they really collaborative at heart?
Encouraged to behave well
A key feature of these platforms is that they rely on various rating systems involving interactions between users and service providers. Commercial platforms thus attract users by promising transparency, which allows anyone to become the manager of their own offering—one day running a property rental business, another day operating a transportation service. Thanks to these collaborative solutions, we can become entrepreneurs relatively easily, and almost all of us can get a sense of service quality when we put ourselves in the customer’s shoes.
Individuals are nevertheless also incentivized to act in accordance with the organization’s expectations, since the evaluation system is designed by the organization itself. In the case of Airbnb, a host can become a “Superhost” if they meet certain criteria and fully satisfy not only their guests but also the organization. This designation then allows them to be listed at the top of the search results, unlike those who have not met the company’s standards.
Similarly, on Blablacar, users rate service providers, give them scores, and leave comments. As a driver, the higher your status—such as “Ambassador” (verified contacts, profile photo, over 90% positive reviews, and more than one year of membership)—the more likely you are to be chosen by passengers, who view this as a sign of safety and a guarantee of trust. This system tends to ensure a certain level of conformity and consistency in behavior, since few drivers will risk breaking the rules, given the risk of being excluded.
Algorithmic control
When we attempted to contact Airbnb to conduct interviews, our efforts proved fruitless despite letters, emails, phone calls, and a visit to their Paris headquarters, where the doors remained closed to us. On the other hand, as users, we grant access to our personal data, which is recorded, stored, and processed for commercial purposes—admittedly with our consent. But what knowledge, let alone control, do we have over the data that becomes invisible to the user?
One of the key features of these platforms is that they provide users with digital management control systems that operate via algorithms. These systems supply users—both providers and consumers—with a wealth of data designed to assist them in their decision-making. In a research article published in 2020, we demonstrated that this mechanism could also guide—or even influence—users in their choices. For example, by encouraging the rental company to automate bookings, or by allowing the system to opt for so-called “smart” pricing.
[We already have over 120,000 subscribers to The Conversation’s newsletters. How about you? Subscribe today to gain a better understanding of the world’s major issues.]
If we take the well-known example of Airbnb, visitor numbers and benchmarks based on data from other comparable accommodations are shared and utilized within the company’s management system. This data feeds into a range of features such as pricing, the calendar, automated booking, status updates, and guest reviews. The organization can thus guide hosts’ behavior and, capitalizing on an information asymmetry—since it knows more than the users—influence their choices.
At the same time, hosts know that they are operating under the platform’s supervision and within its reassuring framework. They have access to reports tracking their monthly and annual activity; they can view past and upcoming payments; they are also aware of the fees associated with renting out the property (cleaning, cancellation, etc.) and have access to performance metrics, price comparisons for similar accommodations in the surrounding area… so that the customer/user is gently introduced to a world where reality is shaped and driven by algorithms.
Soft and comfortable
Users thereby subscribe to and conform to a system of beliefs that are not necessarily their own but rather those of the platform. The collaborative openness of the sharing economy since the beginning of this century goes hand in hand with—to use the term coined by philosopher Gilles Deleuze—a “society of control” that extends into the private sphere of individual behavior. In the early 1990s, the philosopher had this prescient insight:
“The digital language of control consists of numbers, which determine whether information is granted or denied. We are no longer dealing with the mass-individual dichotomy. Individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and the masses have become samples, data, markets, or banks.”
He explained, before warning us:
“We are entering an era of surveillance societies that no longer rely on confinement but on constant monitoring and instant communication. […] Faced with the emerging forms of relentless surveillance in open environments, even the harshest forms of confinement may come to seem like a delightful and benevolent part of the past.”
And yet, how pleasant and comfortable our modern-day confinements seem to us, as they are filled with desires that are expressed and immediately satisfied—or even anticipated! It is therefore essential to protect users and ensure they have bargaining power. This is the role of regulators and policymakers, since these issues concern power and freedom—concepts that lie at the heart of democracy.
Benjamin Benoit, Professor Management Sciences (MRM-UPVD), University of Perpignan; Agnès Mazars-Chapelon, University Professor of Management Sciences, University of Montpellier; Fabienne Villeseque-Dubus, University Professor of Management Sciences, University of Perpignan and Gérald Naro, Professor of Management Sciences, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.