Introduction
This text analyzes the transition from overt censorship to a subtle form of dominance exerted through an algorithmic cage of norms. In the digital age, power does not forbid content; instead, it steers our attention and controls our access to information.
The reader will discover how recommendation systems and the development of AI impact human agency in the workplace. They will be introduced to the concept of working-class liberalism, which advocates for democratic control over technology rather than blind determinism.
Algorithmic Power Lies in the Selection of Attention
Traditional control had the face of a censor or a monarch. Modern algorithmic power is impersonal and operates through selection. It does not tell us what to think, but rather decides which fragments of the world we see within our algorithmic feed.
Algorithms do not always intentionally radicalize every user. However, they alter the structure of information exposure by prioritizing content that evokes strong emotions. Consequently, moral outrage becomes a more effective tool for visibility than substantive argument.
An example of this is the mechanism of algorithmic amplification, where systems promote controversy to maximize time spent on the platform. This leads to an erosion of trust and an increase in conformity within the public sphere.
The Algorithm as a Non-Neutral Institution of Information Selection
Technology is not neutral, as every architecture opens certain possibilities while closing others. Recommendation algorithms function as selection institutions that shape the environment in which our beliefs are updated.
Reaction mechanisms on social networks destroy the authenticity of debate. The high cost of error and the risk of digital ostracism lead people to hide their doubts. This creates a semblance of consensus, where public declarations do not reflect private opinions.
As a result, algorithms may replace human contextual knowledge with codified data. This leads to a centralization of knowledge, in which AI systems optimize processes while ignoring so-called tacit knowledge and the intuition of practitioners.
Digital Ostracism and the Production of Pseudo-Consent
The narrative surrounding AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) often presents automation as an inevitable necessity. In reality, it is a political and economic choice. AI can either replace humans or function as pro-worker AI, expanding human competencies.
Delegating decisions to AI does not absolve humans of responsibility. There is a risk of impersonal power, where no one is willing to justify an error, claiming that "the system calculated it this way." Freedom requires the right to a point of accountability.
In platform work, real freedom is not merely formal equality in a contract or the right to leave (exit), but actual influence over the rules (voice). Therefore, collective representation—for example, through modern labor unions for the self-employed—is essential.
Summary
Freedom does not begin where the law theoretically allows us to say "no," but at the moment we possess the real institutional support necessary to bear the consequences of that word.
The question regarding the future of AI is not whether the machine will replace humans, but what kind of humans we will become while living alongside it. The answer to this question will not be found in Silicon Valley laboratories, but in the daily practice of work, where the fate of our autonomy is decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does contemporary algorithmic power differ from traditional forms of control and censorship?
Unlike traditional control based on prohibitions and specific individuals, algorithmic power is based on content selection and the architecture of attention distribution. Instead of censoring information, it decides which fragments of the world the user will see and which behaviors will be rewarded with visibility.
Do algorithms intentionally radicalize users, and in what way do they influence our beliefs?
Algorithms do not need to intentionally radicalize users because they act as information selection institutions that are not neutral. They influence beliefs by modifying the information environment and rewarding content that generates strong emotions and engagement, which, in a feedback loop with human psychology, can lead to polarization.
How do reaction mechanisms in social media affect the authenticity of public debate and the exchange of information?
Social media mechanisms enable instantaneous, mass ostracism and the punishment of individuals on a huge scale at zero cost to the accusers. This leads to a fear of sanctions, causing people to hide their true beliefs and declare a superficial consensus, which makes public debate less informative and inauthentic.
How do recommendation algorithms change the power structure over information, and can they replace human contextual knowledge?
Recommendation algorithms change the power structure by acting as content 'switches' and shaping the range of a user's informational possibilities by predicting their reactions. Although they can discover complex data patterns, they cannot fully replace human contextual and tacit knowledge, which is based on experience, intuition, and physical embedding in a specific situation.
How do the development of artificial intelligence and the narrative about AGI affect human agency at work?
The narrative about AGI can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy that directs resources toward technologies that replace humans and concentrate knowledge. However, there is an alternative pro-worker AI model which, instead of reducing the importance of the worker, is intended to expand their capabilities and increase agency.
Is the emergence of artificial general intelligence (AGI) an inevitable technical process, or does it depend on adopted assumptions and economic goals?
The emergence of AGI is not a historical necessity, but a process shaped by economic and geopolitical expectations. The direction of technological development depends on the adopted goals—whether it is to serve full automation and the replacement of human labor, or the enhancement of human competencies.
Does AI intelligence translate directly into an increase in the well-being and development of employees?
The increase in employee well-being and development does not result from AI intelligence itself, but from whether this technology enhances the value of human expertise and allows for the performance of more complex tasks. AI can act as a knowledge multiplier and accelerate the learning of novices; however, there is a risk that replacing cognitive effort will weaken the long-term process of creating new knowledge.
Why does delegating decisions to AI systems not remove responsibility from humans and institutions?
Delegating decisions to AI does not remove responsibility because machines do not bear human costs or the consequences of their actions. Responsibility is a normative relationship between an individual and a community; therefore, it rests with the humans and institutions that chose the given model, data, and oversight procedures.
Who controls knowledge and decisions regarding the implementation of AI in the workplace, and how does this affect employee agency?
Decisions on implementing AI depend on organizations and regulators, and their goal is often to capture employee knowledge, which weakens their bargaining power and autonomy. To protect employee agency, democratic control over technology and the creation of new tasks requiring human expertise are advocated.
Is the development of artificial intelligence inevitable, and who should decide its direction in the context of the labor market?
The development of artificial intelligence is not predetermined and should be treated as an element of democratic choice rather than an inevitable process. The direction of innovation should be shaped by institutions, laws, and incentives so that AI enhances the capabilities of workers and remains a tool that extends human learning.
What is the difference between formal equality of parties in a contract and the real freedom and agency of a worker in the digital economy?
Formal equality of parties in a contract is based on the absence of physical coercion during its signing, which classical liberalism considers a sufficient condition for freedom. Real agency and non-domination, however, require the actual ability to negotiate terms, economic security, and the possibility of refusing or exiting the relationship without incurring critical consequences.
How can trade unions help combat information asymmetry in the era of platform work and algorithmic management?
Trade unions can function as institutions for aggregating dispersed knowledge, transforming the private experiences of individual workers into collectively communicable systemic information. In doing so, they allow scattered information about algorithmic errors or workplace realities to cross the threshold of audibility and become a counterweight to the technocratic model of management.
What is the difference between the right to leave a job and having real influence over its organization, and why is the former alone insufficient?
The right to exit (exit) is merely a change of workplace, whereas real influence (voice) means the ability to articulate one's interests and co-decide on the rules within an organization. The right to exit alone is insufficient because for many people—for example, due to family obligations or lack of market alternatives—the cost of changing jobs is too high.
How can workers counteract algorithmic dominance in the workplace?
Workers can counteract algorithmic dominance by participating in defining the principles of how technology operates, including the scope of data collected and the consequences of system evaluations. It is crucial to strive for co-determination regarding the effects of implemented solutions and to use trade unions to negotiate the parameters of work algorithms.
Why is collective representation of employees essential for preserving individual freedom and the quality of decisions within an organization?
Employee representation ensures a pluralism of experiences, which eliminates common 'blind spots' among elites and improves the quality of collective cognition within an organization. Through collective bargaining institutions, the worker ceases to be merely a client and becomes a subject capable of co-creating institutions and questioning decisions without the risk of economic catastrophe.
Why is respect for workers alone insufficient, and what institutional solution does labor liberalism propose in the context of self-employed individuals?
Respect alone is insufficient because, without institutions of agency, it may be merely symbolic and fail to protect workers from a lack of influence over employment conditions. In the context of self-employed individuals, labor liberalism proposes the creation of collective representation institutions (collective Voice), an example of which is the WBREW National Trade Union of the Self-Employed.
Can the self-employed legally form trade unions, and how can one distinguish a genuine entrepreneur from a dependent person?
Yes, individuals performing work for remuneration on a basis other than an employment contract may form trade unions, provided they do not employ others for this type of work and have interests that can be represented by the union. The difference between a genuine entrepreneur and a dependent person is determined not by the terms of the contract, but by analyzing who arbitrarily changes the conditions of the relationship, sets the remuneration, bears the economic risk, and how costly a refusal is.
How do new regulations on collective agreements and the concept of the 'worker' allow for the protection of the self-employed without forcing them to transition to full-time employment?
The new regulations allow the self-employed to be covered by collective labor agreements, provided they fall within the statutory definition of a "person performing gainful employment." This creates an intermediate zone of collective employment law, which provides instruments for representation and protection without the need to recognize all self-employed individuals as salaried employees.
Can a self-employed person simultaneously value independence and wish to belong to a trade union, and how does such action affect the fight against algorithmic control?
Yes, a self-employed person can simultaneously desire entrepreneurial independence and collective representation in a trade union, as these positions are not logically contradictory. Such action allows for the reversal of information asymmetry by gathering bottom-up data and comparing the experiences of many people, which helps reveal patterns in app decisions and counteracts algorithmic control.
How do organizations such as WBREW counteract algorithmic control, and what role do they play in the modern system of representation for working people?
Organizations such as WBREW counteract algorithmic control by striving to represent the self-employed through collective bargaining, mediation, legal support, and a decentralized management model. They serve as an institutional trial and experiment in searching for new organizational models for dispersed contractors whom traditional company unions may not cover.
How can modern associations of the self-employed restore individual agency in the face of technological and informational dominance?
Modern associations can restore individual agency by functioning as infrastructure to correct knowledge asymmetry through the aggregation of individual experiences and transforming them into negotiable demands. They achieve this through decentralization and the creation of industry-specific and local structures that allow for the rapid organization of people around specific technological or legal problems.
