Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article asks how contemporary labor domination is sustained through the organization of knowledge, evidence, and procedure. Building on work in epistemic injustice, it introduces the concept of “processual epistemic burdens,” meaning the cumulative mental exhaustion and iterative cognitive labor imposed on disadvantaged actors who must repeatedly interpret events, assemble evidence, translate their experience in ways that are legible to relevant institutions and authorities, and defend their claims over time. Much of the epistemic injustice literature is oriented to discrete and episodic harms, yet insufficiently accounts for the protracted process by which the oppressed must struggle for recognition. Centering the platform gig economy as an archetypal case, this article shows how algorithmic opacity, fragmented accountability, and adversarial litigation compel workers to become perpetual investigators, translators, and litigants. Reconceptualizing domination as epistemically mediated, the article shows that reducing epistemic injustice in the digital economy requires a more equitable distribution of epistemic labor.

Keywords

Epistemic burdens epistemic injustice platform labor justice political theory of labor

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

(2021) Complaint!. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Anderson

(2012) Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology 26(2): 163–173.

Anderson

(2023) Hermeneutic labor: the gendered burden of interpretation in intimate relationships between women and men. Hypatia 38(1): 177–197.

Berenstain

(2016) Epistemic exploitation. Ergo 3(22): 569–590.

Berenstain

(2020) White feminist gaslighting. Hypatia 35(4): 733–758.

Bieber

Moggia

(2021) Risk shifts in the gig economy: the normative case for an insurance scheme against the effects of precarious work. Journal of Political Philosophy 29(3): 281–304.

Burrell

(2016) How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3(1): 1–12.

Bystov

(2021) What makes epistemic injustice an “injustice”? Journal of Social Philosophy 52(1): 116–133.

Chan

Kwok

(2021) Guerilla capitalism and the platform economy: governing Uber in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Information, Communication & Society 24(6): 780–796.

10.

Coworker.org (2020) Data shows Shipt’s ‘black-box’ algorithm reduces pay of 40% of workers. Available at: https://home.coworker.org/data-shows-shipts-black-box-algorithm-reduces-pay-of-40-of-workers/ (accessed 5 January 2026).

11.

Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco (2022) Available at: https://fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb156.htm (accessed 22 December 2025).

12.

D’Ignazio

Klein

(2020) Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Dotson

(2011) Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia 26(2): 236–257.

14.

Dotson

(2014) Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology 28(2): 115–138.

15.

Dotson

(2018) Accumulating epistemic power: a problem with epistemology. Philosophical Topics 46(1): 129–154.

16.

Dufresne

Leterme

(2021) App workers united: the struggle for rights in the gig economy. The Left in the European Parliament. Available at: https://left.eu/app/uploads/2021/02/Study_EMPL2-v2-App.pdf (accessed 10 January 2026).

17.

European Commission (2021) Second phase consultation of social partners under Article 154 TFEU on a possible action addressing the challenges related to working conditions in platform work. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24095&langId=en (accessed 18 December 2025).

18.

European Parliament (2025) Improving the working conditions of platform workers. Briefing, EU Legislation in Progress. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)698923 (accessed 19 December 2025).

19.

Feiner

(2020) Appeals court grants Uber and Lyft a temporary reprieve following threats to shut down in California. CNBC, 20 August. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/appeals-court-grants-uber-and-lyft-a-temporary-reprieve-in-case-over-driver-classification.html (accessed 10 February 2026).

20.

Felix

Dourado

Nossa

(2023) Algorithmic management, preferences for autonomy/security and gig-workers’ wellbeing: a matter of fit? Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1–12.

21.

Fricker

(2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Garden

(2018) Disrupting work law: arbitration in the gig economy. University of Chicago Legal Forum 2017: 205–234.

23.

Gurley

(2020) Target’s delivery app workers describe culture of retaliation and fear. VICE, 14 February. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/target-shipt-delivery-app-workers-retaliation/ (accessed 20 January 2026).

24.

Halliday

(2021) On the (mis)classification of paid labor: when should gig workers have employee status? Politics, Philosophy & Economics 20(3): 229–250.

25.

Heyes

Hastings

(2017) The practices of enforcement bodies in detecting and preventing bogus self-employment. European Platform Undeclared Work. Available at: https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/Study%20Practices%20of%20enforcement%20bodies%20detecting%20preventing%20bogus%20self%20employment.pdf (accessed 8 February 2026).

26.

Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another (2023) Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0155 (accessed 25 February 2026).

27.

International Labour Organization (2016) Non-standard employment around the world: understanding challenges, shaping prospects. Geneva: ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/non-standard-employment-around-world-understanding-challenges-shaping (accessed 18 December 2025).

28.

International Labour Organization (2021) The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work. Geneva: ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/role-digital-labour-platforms-transforming-world-work (accessed 21 December 2025).

29.

International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (2021) Taken for a ride: litigating the digital platform model. Available at: https://www.ilawnetwork.com/issue-briefs-reports/taken-for-a-ride-litigating-the-digital-platform-model/ (accessed 29 December 2025).

30.

Jarrahi

Newlands

Lee

, et al. (2021) Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society 8(2): 1–14.

31.

Kellogg

Valentine

Christin

(2020) Algorithms at work: the new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals 14(1): 366–410.

32.

Kidd

Medina

Pohlhaus

Jr (eds) (2017) The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. London: Routledge.

33.

Kwok

(2021) Epistemic injustice in workplace hierarchies: power, knowledge and status. Philosophy & Social Criticism 47(9): 1104–1131.

34.

Kwok

(2025a) Epistemic dispossession in platform capitalism: insights from Iris Marion Young’s five faces of oppression. Social Epistemology: 1–18. Epub ahead of print 3 December 2025. DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2025.2585445.

35.

Kwok

(2025b) The epistemology of corporate power: the limits of the firm–state analogy. Journal of Applied Philosophy 42(1): 197–216.

36.

Kwok

Chan

(2024a) Datafication and implicated networks of demobilization: social movement demobilization in datafied societies. Social Movement Studies 23(3): 373–390.

37.

Kwok

Chan

(2024b) Human-automated collectives: automating communication for social movement mobilization. New Media & Society 26(9): 4992–5012.

38.

Lee

(2023a) Gig workers win employment status recognition after delivery platform Zeek accused of withholding pay. Hong Kong Free Press, 19 June. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/2023/06/19/gig-workers-win-employment-status-recognition-after-delivery-platform-zeek-accused-of-withholding-pay/ (accessed 22 January 2026)

39.

Lee

(2023b) ‘The law can’t catch up’: Hong Kong delivery riders chasing unpaid wages seek regulation of gig economy. Hong Kong Free Press, 17 July. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/2023/07/16/the-law-cant-catch-up-hong-kong-delivery-riders-chasing-unpaid-wages-seek-regulation-of-gig-economy/ (accessed 22 January 2026).

40.

Lei

Y-W

(2021) Delivering solidarity: platform architecture and collective contention in China’s platform economy. American Sociological Review 86(2): 279–309.

41.

MacKenzie

(2022) Why didn’t you scream? Epistemic injustices of sexism, misogyny and rape myths. Journal of Philosophy of Education 56(5): 787–801.

42.

Mason

(2011) Two kinds of unknowing. Hypatia 26(2): 294–307.

43.

Mazur

Serafin

(2023) Stalling the state: how digital platforms contribute to and profit from delays in the enforcement and adoption of regulations. Comparative Political Studies 56(1): 101–130.

44.

Meaker

(2022) Gig workers were promised a better deal. Then they were outsourced. WIRED, 17 January. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/gig-economy-outsourcing-uk/ (accessed 7 January 2026).

45.

Medina

(2011) The relevance of credibility excess in a proportional view of epistemic injustice: differential epistemic authority and the social imaginary. Social Epistemology 25(1): 15–35.

46.

Medina

(2012) Hermeneutical injustice and polyphonic contextualism: social silences and shared hermeneutical responsibilities. Social Epistemology 26(2): 201–220.

47.

Moore

Joyce

(2020) Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism. Review of International Political Economy 27(4): 926–948.

48.

Muldoon

(2022) Platform Socialism: How to Reclaim Our Digital Future from Big Tech. London: Pluto Press.

49.

Muldoon

Raekstad

(2023) Algorithmic domination in the gig economy. European Journal of Political Theory 22(4): 587–607.

50.

Muldoon

Sun

(2024) The global gig economy: how transport platform companies adapt to regulatory challenges––a comparative analysis of six countries. Industrial Law Journal 53(3): 481–504.

51.

Murgia

(2024) Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI. London: Picador.

52.

National Employment Lawyers Association (2021) Justice restored: ending forced arbitration and protecting fundamental rights. Available at: https://www.nela.org/fair-act-testimony/ (accessed 12 February 2026).

53.

Noor

(2020) Shipt’s ‘effort-based’ model is cutting pay for 40% of workers, study shows. Gizmodo, 15 October. Available at: https://gizmodo.com/shipts-effort-based-model-is-cutting-pay-for-40-of-wor-1845374119 (accessed 13 February 2026).

54.

Pohlhaus

Jr (2012) Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: toward a theory of willful hermeneutical ignorance. Hypatia 27(4): 715–735.

55.

Rahman

(2021) The invisible cage: workers’ reactivity to opaque algorithmic evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly 66(4): 945–988.

56.

Rideshare Drivers United and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (2023) Fired by an app: the toll of secret algorithms and unchecked discrimination on California rideshare drivers. Available at: https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/guides-reports/fired-by-an-app-report (accessed 11 February 2026).

57.

Risak

(2018) Fair working conditions for platform workers: possible regulatory approaches at the EU level. Available at: https://euagenda.eu/publications/fair-working-conditions-for-platform-workers-possible-regulatory-approaches-at-the-eu-level (accessed 5 February 2026).

58.

Rosenblat

Stark

(2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication 10: 3758–3784.

59.

Stone

KVW

(2016) Uber and arbitration: a lethal combination. Economic Policy Institute, 24 May. Available at: https://www.epi.org/blog/uber-and-arbitration-a-lethal-combination/ (accessed 18 February 2026).

60.

Tassinari

Maccarrone

(2020) Riders on the storm: workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society 34(1): 35–54.

61.

Uber South Africa Technology Services (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) and Others (2018) Available at: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCCT/2018/1.html (accessed 28 December 2025).

62.

Uber BV and others v Aslam and others (2021). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0029 (accessed 28 January 2026).

63.

Vallas

Schor

(2020) What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology 46: 273–294.

64.

Vasudevan

Chan

(2022) Gamification and work games: examining consent and resistance among Uber drivers. New Media & Society 24(4): 866–886.

65.

Veen

Barratt

Goods

(2020) Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: a labor process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society 34(3): 388–406.

66.

Worker Info Exchange (2021) Managed by bots: data-driven exploitation in the gig economy. Available at: https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/wie-report-managed-by-bots (accessed 11 December 2025).

67.

Treré

Bonini

(2022) The emergence of algorithmic solidarity: unveiling mutual aid practices and resistance among Chinese delivery couriers. Media International Australia 183(1): 107–123.

68.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) Available at: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/cases/decided/case-s272021 (accessed 21 December 2025).

69.

Zhang

(2024) Global financialization and local labour acquisition in China’s platform economy. The China Quarterly 259: 785–803.

Processual epistemic burdens and the struggles for recognition: Epistemic injustice in the platform economy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References