“Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them,”
Because they are, if they weren’t what we wanted we’d use something else. That’s what capitalism is, control by consumer.
” People working in Amazon’s warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber’s increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. ”
How are people working in Amazon’s warehouses “shouldering the price”? They have a job that is presumably better than the job they could get if they didnt have it. How are they worse off because the employment they prefer exists?
How are crowd workers paying the prices? They choose this form of employment, presumably for reasons that are good to them. The fact that they don’t have a “job” in the traditional sense _is an adavantage_. Because not everyone needs or wants a “job” in the full time, turn up every day sense.
How are Uber’s drivers “increasingly precarious”? The investors may be in an increasingly precarious situation but the drivers are either doing well or getting out, and there don’t seem to be that many getting out.
“Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.”
No it really doesn’t, even if it wanted it, which you haven’t shown. There is no reason why every group a firm deals with should adopt that firms model. Just as there is no reason why a for-profit resturant should buy it’s ingredients from a farmer’s cooperative, there’s no reason why a farmer’s cooperative shouldn’t buy it’s data processing or storage from a for-profit firm. An attempt to impose one model uber alles is not only doomed to failure, it’s fundamentally tyrannical.