Platform Cooperativism: A Digital Platform That Opposes Capitalist Monopolies and Promotes the Spirit of Cooperatives.

Imagine it is 2044, and you are still on Earth, having not yet had the opportunity to migrate to another planet. You hold your Tesla Phone, call an Uber-Apple co-branded self-driving car from your home, and meet up with four or five people you arranged to meet on Tinder to dine at a Panda Food restaurant. All these friends have passed the safety screening for exposure history to new infectious diseases. You can pay through an online virtual currency financial system. If more than 30 people book, you can also connect through Spotify to invite a community singer to perform live. Now you don’t even need to touch the screen with your fingers. Elon Musk’s Neuralink technology has passed a series of pig-based tests and received policy support, allowing you to use it with your phone. By agreeing to the service and granting access to your data, you can install it at half price. Meanwhile, China has also launched low-cost neural interface technology phones…

Is this still far from us? Clearly not. In today’s world, where all social networks, the internet, and personal data are seamlessly integrated, smartphones and the applications they carry can meet all the efficiency needs of urban residents, making your daily life—from food, clothing, housing, transportation, education, and entertainment—more convenient. The Uberisation of everything not only brings greater convenience to people’s lives and changes their habits but also transforms the spaces in which we live.

The current sharing economy become a winner takes all game

Is the online public space/sexuality still important? On one hand, the issue of widening global income inequality appears more severe than ever. According to the paper ‘The City as a Growth Platform: Helsinki Metropolitan Area Cities’ Response to the Global Digital Economy,’ the authors cite Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s research, which compares Kodak, Instagram, and Facebook to illustrate the trend of increased productivity and growing inequality.

In this context, Kodak represents the ‘first machine age,’ while Instagram and Facebook represent the platform economy, or what Brynjolfsson and McAfee refer to as the ‘second machine age.’ Instagram’s 15 employees created a simple application that attracted 130 million users. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 for over $1 billion. At the time, Facebook had approximately 4,600 employees, while Kodak, at its peak in the 1970s, employed up to 140,000 people, with one-third based in Rochester, New York. This comparison highlights the most significant issue: there is a vast disparity in the distribution and dissemination of wealth between the First and Second Machine Ages. Platform companies like Facebook have more customers and greater market value than Kodak, but they employ only a fraction of the workforce that Kodak and similar high-tech companies of the industrial era did.

In summary, over the past two centuries, wages have increased alongside productivity gains, providing a certain legitimacy to the claim that everyone benefits from technological progress. However, recently, median wages have ceased to keep pace with productivity. This decoupling is a key indicator of the nature of the platform economy. It is about households rather than individual workers, or total wealth rather than annual income. As technology advances, many are being left behind. Another snapshot of current developments is the comparison between wages and living costs. For example, from 1990 to 2008, the median household income in the United States increased by approximately 20%, while housing and university costs rose by over 50% and healthcare costs by over 150%. Even in the United States, this trend and many similar trends indicate a polarising trend, as the United States is a country that has absorbed a significant portion of the value created by platform companies.

In ‘The Winner Takes It All,’ author Anand Gurudharadas reveals a concept where these wealthy elites, under the guise of ‘improving social issues,’ prioritise protecting themselves. The rise of this power to solve public problems through ‘private methods’ represents a new private approach to changing the world by elites and leaders, which is superior to the old-fashioned public and democratic methods: in the past, governments independently took responsibility for solving the nation’s most pressing issues, including infrastructure such as road systems and social programmes (such as the New Deal in the United States).

Today’s challenges are more complex and interconnected than ever before, and cannot be resolved through single actions. This presents an opportunity for governments to involve various actors, including non-profit organisations and businesses, in the ‘influence economy.’ This approach elevates funders to a leadership role in addressing public issues, granting them the power to block solutions that threaten their interests. Meanwhile, universities have committed to using ‘entrepreneurship’ as a new focus to address ‘some of the world’s most pressing issues.’

Urban Platformism — Urban policy interventions must consider the city’s own development

How does the spatial sense of a city change due to the efficiency required by smart cities? What further impacts does this have on residents? According to a description on a Japanese big data website, upon entering Society 5.0, all data accumulated since Society 4.0 will be processed and converted into new intelligent forms through artificial intelligence (AI), then disseminated across all aspects of people’s lives. As people will receive products and services at the appropriate time and in the right quantity, their lives will become more comfortable and stable.

Our assumption is that cities are gradually understanding how the global economy is changing, so they are applying new models and tools to help them adapt to the global digital economy. Some cities have also established local growth platforms aimed at combining the liquidity of the new economy with the ultimate needs of city governments, ultimately guiding beneficiaries to their locations or at least engaging with institutions tied to specific locations.

It appears that, in addition to the previously discussed global context, the fundamental element that must be considered is ‘digitalisation.’ Cities have begun to realise that they need to leverage digital technology to capitalise on the rapidly developing digital-driven economy, which can enhance urban economies through increased productivity of local businesses, global innovation networks, or the adoption of platform models. As an example of platform capitalism, city governments face new challenges related to platform urbanism: communities require sufficient infrastructure to facilitate the operation of the platform economy and the ability to negotiate with private platform companies and local service providers. They clearly benefit from an economic structure where sectors related to the platform economy hold significant influence.

Additionally, local areas require talent, which is crucial for entrepreneurship, R&D, management, and specialised functions within the platform economy. These aspects draw our attention to infrastructure, industry, and talent, which are the fundamental elements for localising platform economy activities, and conversely, the fundamental elements for connecting local and global platform economies.

How techno-feudalism affects urban development

The profits of the global digital economy—requiring a continuously evolving urban growth machine to sustain them. Quoting the report ‘Cities as Growth Platforms’ 7, the discussion of cities as growth engines, the mechanisms and actors driving these engines, is nothing more than an elite game of free-market competition. In this game, actors with shared interests invest resources and organise public and private sector networks to drive economic growth. In this context, communities and people are viewed as potential beneficiaries or, due to different considerations, as individuals who must be sacrificed for the sake of overall growth. Regardless of the outcome, in this elite-led growth game, communities and people are often reduced to passive units. Therefore, urban development often leans toward capital, with various economic zones, public transportation, electricity and water resources, and investment incentives—all of which are public goods belonging to the city—being prioritised as development options, while the profits are exclusively enjoyed by large capital companies.

In the era of the digital platform economy, the face of ‘capital’ has shifted from the chairman on television to the sleek logos and AI customer service chat rooms on the screen. Platforms serve as online intermediaries for social and economic interactions and transactions. The most powerful or effective platforms representing the new economy are digital platforms. These include digital marketplaces and non-essential consumer goods companies such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, special forms of sharing, and supply-demand matching in the service industry, such as Uber and Airbnb, as well as internet and communication companies like Google, Baidu, Facebook, and Tencent, which are at the forefront of the new economy.

Viewing platforms as key integrators and facilitators in the ‘global digital economy,’ they capture the essence of this economy from the perspective of high-tech companies and the mechanisms that drive the development of new economic sectors and bring together key participants. Platforms rely on a decentralised value creation logic to attract users, facilitate their transactions, and profit from them. Additionally, from the perspective of how platforms utilise algorithms and other forms of artificial intelligence to facilitate processes, this business model is clever, especially when combined with massive processing power, enabling exchanges on an unprecedented scale. Such a business model also carries inherent risks, sparking discussions about privacy, power, and regulation in the platform economy.

Increasing Urban Publicness Through Cooperativism in the ‘Platform Generation’

How might urban spaces under platform cooperativism look? How can people truly share what they need? As a radical tradition, labour solidarity avoids alienation through organised structures. How can this tradition respond to the accelerated progressivism of the digital age? Can the technologies applied to startups be combined with the spirit of the cooperative economy to create a more equitable life for people?

Through platform cooperativism, the idea is to use platform technology to connect workers and service providers, with workers autonomously organising cooperatives. How can platform cooperatives contribute to this? Can local services align with new urbanism networks and form alliances as ‘rebel cities’? In the face of mutant fascism, can local lifestyles be reimagined to transcend blood, soil, nation, and corporation, becoming neighbourhood and public?

From 2019 to 2021, the platform cooperativism movement established participatory design and technical toolkits, enabling more local labour groups to gain an understanding of technological tools and engage in cross-regional cooperation, thereby continuing to build successful cases, hacking into the future they desire, and finding the commons in digital space. This simultaneously requires policy support for cooperative regulations and funding. The following are examples of platform cooperativism developed to address urban labour issues.

Fairbnb.coop Fairbnb’s operational model is based on four core principles: collective ownership, democratic governance, public participation, and institutional accountability. This strategy of empowering citizens effectively strengthens social structures within urban areas and, to some extent, limits gentrification and inequality. Emanuele Dal Carlo and Damiano Avellino introduced their plan at the 2019 Platform Cooperation Conference. Fairbnb.coop was formed in response to the growing issue of over-tourism in Venice affecting local life. They also reflected on their positioning — not merely as a protest against existing platforms, but as a genuine effort to build a platform.

They believe that to stand firm, both feet must be in sync—resistance is needed, but so is progress. Breaking free from traditional frameworks and constraints, they decided to take the plunge and try it out. The biggest challenge initially was securing funds to sustain the cooperative’s operations. As for how it actually works, the goal is to create a model that benefits both hosts and guests, bringing positive impacts to the entire community. Like other platforms, FAIR BNB charges a 15% fee, half of which supports the cooperative’s operations, and the other half is used by guests to fund local social projects. Thus, both hosts and guests pay the same proportion, while also benefiting the entire community.

Coop Cycle — Transport Cooperative/Delivery Platform

Coop Cycle was founded in Europe with the aim of creating a bicycle delivery company that truly belongs to local workers, such as this company in Bordeaux. There are also companies like Mensakas, so Coop Cycle is a consortium of several companies. Through the continuous unity of forces in various regions, grassroots activities are strengthened. As of 2019, there are 26 such cooperatives in Europe, employing approximately 100 delivery workers, generating 1.2 million euros in revenue, and securing significant subsidies, thereby demonstrating that these organisations can be localised.

Coop Cycle builds networks to pool resources. This is not a confrontation between local organisations and capitalist platforms, but rather an effort to establish meaningful, global-scale organisations that remain closely connected to grassroots communities. They have created centralised services and shared platform technology. Some cooperatives are not yet well-known, but by bringing everyone together, users can find the services they need on this digital platform.

Contracts and salary management are also crucial. Employees are at the core of all services, so they must be fully protected regardless of the country they are in. Therefore, we must understand how to utilise the laws of European countries to protect every employee. Additionally, there is a technical aspect highly relevant to the delivery industry: business collaboration. For example: bulk purchasing, supporting the establishment of new cooperatives, launching initiatives, etc. So, the main point of this slide is that when the scale expands to the entire European Union, it does indeed bring a certain degree of influence.

Coop Cycle also faces many challenges in its development. The first is to establish a sustainable and democratic business model from the very beginning and maintain it as the scale continues to grow. To be honest, keeping the business model sustainable and democratic is indeed a challenge. Another challenge is how to secure funding. They initially proposed the idea of membership fees, with each local cooperative contributing investment funds. However, the issue was that many organisations were newly established and lacked sufficient funds. Therefore, they applied for two rounds of grants and successfully secured them. At least in Europe, many political partners view this as a social issue, but grants are not a continuous source of funding.

Another important issue is how to provide employees with a productive work environment, especially for those responsible for projects of varying scales, which remains a challenge. Finally, how to prevent capitalist platforms from taking over your project. How can open-source digital platforms compete with capitalist companies? How can we avoid misuse while ensuring the platform remains transparent and accessible to everyone? The solution is a licence. With this licence, the platform remains open, but its commercial use is limited to members of social enterprise cooperatives. Coop Cycle has also made significant efforts to protect public assets.

Turkey’s NeedsMap (İhtiyaç Haritası) Demand Matching Map Platform

NeedsMap developed its 2020 strategic plan with the participation of various stakeholders: humanitarian aid, technological response, and economic recovery. The NeedsMap platform is a data-matching map based on actual material distribution, bringing together those in need and those who wish to help. It addresses individuals’ basic needs (such as clothing, shoes, jackets, and blankets) as well as the needs of non-governmental organisations, public schools, cooperatives, volunteer groups, social platforms, and community centres (e.g., volunteer supplies, school supplies, books, even paint, computers, projectors, and office furniture sharing and donations).

One of the main founders, Ali Ercan Özgür, has dedicated his career to researching socio-economic maps and data-driven maps, observing how neighbourhood-based geographic data mapping plays a crucial role for decision-makers, particularly in local governments. In 2012, he established an online platform called City Kid, which documented urban residents’ issues through photos and videos and enabled users to directly share these issues with local authorities. In 2015, a group began considering the use of a web-based application to address map-based digital systems capable of addressing social development needs at the urban and community levels.

Mert Fırat, a renowned Turkish actor and UNDP Turkey Sustainable Development Goals Goodwill Ambassador, also participated in the development process, agreeing to establish a ‘social cooperative’ to meet common needs through a web-based platform. They believed that a cooperative was the most appropriate institutional form, reflecting values centred on solidarity and mutual aid. In October 2015, the beta version of NeedsMap (test version) was launched at the UNDP Social Good Summit and has since evolved into its current form.

This is a network platform where people voluntarily participate, using a non-monetary donation system to address social issues related to poverty. Currently, NeedsMap primarily serves the region of Turkey, with seven main partners, serving over 95,000 users, employing seven full-time staff members, and having raised over 512,000 USD to date.

In addition to the seven founding members who form the board of directors and audit committee, we have four members responsible for different departments (finance, volunteers, online platform, public-private sector relations, project planning, public relations, and transaction operations). Establishing a platform cooperative allows us to collectively address community issues and share decision-making and responsibility.

For NeedsMap, becoming an effective and user-friendly social platform within the circular economy is crucial. They have no warehouses or stores but operate a volunteer-based cooperative platform that can meet the needs of thousands of people. NeedsMap has 10,000 volunteers working in the field, offices, universities, and digital environments.

Conclusion
Taipei ranked 8th in the 2020 IMD Global Smart City Ranking, one position lower than the previous year. But has our city truly become smarter? Or is this ‘smartness’ merely a reference value for investment rankings by a few capital companies? As cities become increasingly homogenised due to competition in network and digital technology, how should we redefine development strategies?

Beyond economically oriented urban planning, how can we develop city resources (science parks, transportation infrastructure, industry-academia collaboration, etc.) that are more conducive to ‘platform economy’ development? How should cities apply data and develop technology, and how can we promote development based on ‘public value ethics’? When facing the onslaught of transnational platform capital companies, must cities always wait for problems to arise before responding with solutions, or can we take the initiative to proactively defend urban data as public infrastructure and encourage more citizen-led collaborative platform economy strategies?

[1] Apple and Google Collaborate on COVID-19 Contact Tracing Technology, 10 April 2020.

[2] Musk demonstrates Neuralink’s bio-electronic brain technology using three pigs, revealing the latest achievements in brain-computer interface technology, 31 August 2020, Digital Times.

[3] Uberisation describes how new entrants use computational platforms (such as mobile applications) to commoditise existing service-based industries, enabling transactions between service customers and providers. The so-called ‘platform economy’ typically refers to bypassing existing intermediaries. Compared to traditional business models, this business model has different operational costs.

[4] City as a Growth Platform: Responses of the Cities of Helsinki Metropolitan Area to the Global Digital Economy, 2020, Urban Sc, Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, OrcID, Markus Laine, and Henrik Lönnqvist.

[5] Winner Takes All: The Most Profitable Deal in History, The Masked Elite Who Seize the World Through Charity, Linking Press, Anand Girdharad.

[6]The Future of Humanity and the World of Technology — Society 5.0

[7]City as a Growth Platform: Responses of the Cities of Helsinki Metropolitan Area to Global Digital Economy, 2020, Urban Sc, Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, OrcID, Markus Laine and Henrik Lönnqvist.

[8] What is platform cooperativism (platform coop)? A broad definition of platform cooperatives: ‘Platform cooperatives are collectively owned, democratically managed enterprises that use digital platforms to connect people and assets, enabling them to meet their needs or solve problems.’

References
*Digital democracy? Options for the International Cooperative Alliance to advance Platform Coops,ICA. *Platform Urbanism: Negotiating Platform Ecosystems in Connected Cities (Geographies of Media)，2020，Sarah Barns. *STIR MAGAZINE *Fairbnb.coop launches, offering help for social projects. *Needs Map – İhtiyaç Haritası GLOBAL，INNOVATION EXCHANGE (https://www.globalinnovationexchange.org/innovation/needs-map-ihtiyac-haritasi) *The Future of Humanity and the World of Technology — Society 5.0

2021-03-29 published on eyes on place