A striking feature of the platform economy is the diverse range of labour relations it allows that challenge traditional definitions of work, workers, and the mechanisms of exploitation. This paper will explore one set of workers – online creators – to question the concept of commodification as a prism for understanding the economic relations of their work. The labour of influencers, OnlyFans creators, and TikTokers is often critiqued for being a process of commodification of self and thus a site for alienation of meaningful personhood. Drawing on ideas in my new recent book Digital Labour, this talk will question this assumption. It will propose instead the framework of “assetisation” to explain the commercialisation of subjectivity in online creator work. It will go on to explore briefly the implications of this framing for how we understand the class politics at play within the platform economy.

Over the past decades, algorithmic management have transformed how work is supervised and economies are structured, but they bring challenges. Automated decisions are opaque, eroding worker autonomy, reinforcing bias, and creating income uncertainty. Further complicating matters, sensitive and personal data of workers has become a valuable commodity in the digital age, eagerly sought after by commercial interests. We need robust principles and explicit protections to safeguard workers’ data rights, including effective dispute resolution mechanisms. However, the European Union’s approach to these issues remains uncertain. In the EU, four regulatory scenarios exist, from emphasizing data protection and law enforcement to balancing protection, efficiency, and investment. Another approach streamlines regulation, prioritizing profitability. Lastly, harmonized standardization is an option. In light of these varied regulatory possibilities, the central question arises: which scenario offers the most judicious balance when it comes to protecting workers’ data rights in the face of these evolving challenges?