On-demand digital platforms have transformed labor relations by disclaiming their responsibilities as employers while retaining their control over workers. Underlying the exploitative labor regimes is what van Doorn (2020) terms “platform exceptionalism,” which is a socio-legal imaginary of platforms as unique and exceptional from the traditional model of employment, including state regulations. Accordingly, this study investigates how such imaginary is constructed and maintained by platforms in distinctive political regimes by comparing Meituan and Uber Eats, the two major food-delivery platforms in China and the US.

Based on critical discourse analysis of companies’ materials, news coverage, and official document, I uncover two distinctive forms of platform exceptionalisms. Uber’s strategy is to leverage its influence among drivers, mobilize grassroots activists and push for legal changes in their favor, which I characterize as “discursive exceptionalism” as it heavily relies on the discursive alignment with “gig workers” and framing them as dedicated independent contractors who highly value flexibility. In contrast, Meituan employs what I call “legal exceptionalism,” in which the company ostensibly comply with state regulation while exploiting legal gray zones to bypass legal obligation. As a complement, the discourse of familial value and care is frequently invoked by Meituan to glorify itself and conceal the structural problem needed to be addressed. This study contributes to our knowledge of platform capitalism in different political regimes by comparing different approaches to platform exceptionalisms and linking them to their distinctive regulatory and political regimes.

The refers to a common video trend we encountered as we set out to analyze how FDWs use TikTok to express personal and sexual sovereignty amid constraining structural surveillance at the level of policy, employer-employee dynamics, and social restrictions. Academic scholars from various disciplines have critiqued the nature of migration regimes in which foreign domestic workers (FDW) are hired, drawing from the fields of social, health, and economic justice. We focus on FDWs in Singapore, where these conditions are enforced and rationalized through laws and government-owned-media that entrench socially constructed divisions. These conditions are rationalized and perpetuated through rhetoric that stigmatizes, stereotypes, and enforces segregation. Intersecting layers of marginalization are created by a labor system that maximally extracts and exploits low-wage migrant workers. Discursive techniques used by state-owned media and legislation also portray FDW as ungovernable and promiscuous employer property that supersedes and eclipses their civil rights (Kaur-Gill, Pandi & Dutta, 2021).

Academic scholars from various disciplines have critiqued the nature of migration regimes in which foreign domestic workers (FDW) are hired, drawing from the fields of social, health, and economic justice. We focus on FDWs in Singapore, where these conditions are enforced and rationalized through laws and government-owned-media that entrench socially constructed divisions. This paper considers how the reality of “influencers” who are "unfree" challenges social media studies’ assumptions about what, and who, is a "content creator." The paper offers a walkthrough of the TikTok advertising interface, in order to understand how FDWs adapt to the platform’s environment of expected use (Light et al, 2018). How do TikTok’s platform norms guide and pressure users to adapt to its advertising goals? How do unfree subaltern users adapt to these limits? How, amidst multiple layers of restriction, do FDW influencers use the platform for building self-authored stories of social status and heightened visibility?