Influencers Are Here To Stay—Now It's Time To Modernize Labor Laws
A TikTok ban could devastate thousands of independent workers, but the real challenge lies in modernizing labor laws to support the new economy.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on the government's TikTok ban next month, just days before it's supposed to take effect. If the Supreme Court upholds the ban, many of the 100,000 independent workers who rely on TikTok as either a primary job or a side gig could face devastating economic consequences.
The term "influencer" may elicit eye rolls, but whether these content creators are sharing do-it-yourself tips or mental health advice or merely pictures of a recent lunch outing, the entrepreneurship and income involved are real. U.S. labor laws have not kept up with the changing environment of work, and as a result, nontraditional workers are especially vulnerable to labor market shocks. It's time for reforms that incorporate the growing self-employed work force.
While influencing is a relatively new form of work, freelancing and self-employment have been features of the American labor force for decades. Estimates show around 60 million Americans engaged in traditional freelance jobs or gig work in 2022. Twenty-three percent of these gig workers made influencer-style content on a social media platform.
Independent workers face different risks than traditional employees. Workers whose primary source of income is independent contracting are frequently left out of employment-based benefits and protections. Laws that tie benefits like health insurance or retirement savings accounts to W-2 employment go back half a century, long before anyone could make millions off of 30-second dancing videos.
When these laws were created, restricting benefits in this way wasn't a big issue because a larger majority of workers were traditional employees. But now our laws are failing a significant portion of the modern work force. State and federal policymakers can remove old-age barriers that restrict the flow of benefits to the independent work force.
In 2023, Utah passed a law that removed the presence of benefits in determining whether someone was an independent worker or a W-2 employee, which effectively allowed organizations to provide benefits to independent workers. As a result, Target's delivery service Shipt launched a pilot benefits program in Utah earlier this year in partnership with the benefits company Stride. Just this month, Lyft announced it will run a pilot portable benefits program in the state, contributing 7 percent of a driver's quarterly earnings into a flexible benefit fund. It's then up to the workers to decide how they wish to use it.
This move may have created momentum for other states to do the same. With the support of Pennsylvania's governor, DoorDash introduced a pilot portable benefits program in April that will allow delivery workers to receive deposits equal to 4 percent of their earnings, also managed by Stride.
There is plenty more that policymakers can do, from equalizing tax treatment between self-employed workers and traditional employees to changing the infrastructure of health insurance laws to clear the path for better access for the self-employed.
Critics of portable benefits argue that workers would be better off in traditional employment arrangements. However, according to a 2023 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey, the vast majority of independent workers don't want to be W-2 employees. That's partly because independent work offers a type of autonomy that most can't get in a traditional 9-to-5 job.
It's not "pro-worker" to force people into arrangements that may not suit their personal or professional needs. When states have pursued such reclassification—as California did with 2019's Assembly Bill 5—it resulted in fewer independent work opportunities and no increase in payrolled jobs, as was promised. The real answer is to adapt labor laws to better encompass the new environment of work.
Even if TikTok is banned, social media influencing will remain a force in the U.S. economy. For many young people, including the 57 percent of Gen Z who say they want to be influencers, it's a dream job. When asked what they want to be when they grow up, the most popular occupation among children between 8 and 12 is a YouTuber. Scoff if you like, but young professionals are successfully opting out of traditional work arrangements in favor of flexible work. Already, 53 percent of Gen Z professionals are working freelance jobs full time.
While a TikTok ban would hurt many workers, policymakers can empower independent workers in the new economy. A system of flexible benefits for an already-flexible work force is long overdue.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We can always rely on Reason to support minor changes to federal government interference in our lives instead of advocating their elimination.
(And specifically about TikTok, it is possible someone will create another online platform for all these poor 'workers' to perform on)
Came here to say the same. Fine, go ahead and suggest changes in how governments meddle, but while you're at it, a nod to not meddling at all would befit a so-called libertarian rag better. You know, like individualism, minimal state, that kind of thing?
Fire KMW.
Get out of DC.
Principles, principles!
Without mentioning the principles of individualism, these articles are just more opinion pieces. The web is full of opinion pieces. They're like assholes, everyone's got one. Principles are rare and should be what sets a libertarian website apart from all the others.
I was self employed for 40 years. Any benefits I received I paid for out of my own pocket. Government doesn't have to "do" anything except get the fuck out of the way.
Government has to be involved in order to set these people up to be Unionized.
Fire KMW.
Get out of DC.
Principles, principles!
This. Also, no diversity of libertarian thought. It's all one variety of pseudo-libertarian-paternalist establishmentarianism. The radical outliers here are Robby and Liz (Stossel, Rommelmann and the Volokh guys don't count) and they're both totally orthodox.
Where's the representative voice from the Mises caucus? That's a huge chunk of the American party. Where's the Anarcho-capitalist or minarchist voice? Why no individualist anarchist or De Leonist guest columnist to really shake things up?
Instead we have a bunch of Washington establishment uniparty hacks searching for ways to put a libertarianish spin on their Journolist marching orders, as they wait for an offer to a 'real' gig with the NYT or Atlantic.
It would be interesting to see career choices by all the interns and other writers who have left. Shika, I heard she followed her leftist urges. Sheldon Richman has at least stayed individualist. But all those interns ... I wonder where they went.
They’re either on only fans or doing donkey shows.
Principles are rare because they're succinct and don't need to be restated in a million ways. Who needs another article that says to abolish the state? I find articles arguing for little tweaks on various bases to be much more valuable than just saying, fuck you, cut spending, over and over. Since very few people are going to be radicals of any kind, it makes sense to persuade non-radicals to make various improvements.
I don't want JUST principles. I want principles to be mentioned. An article which just suggests tweaks to make tax collection a little more efficient is one of a million. A magazine or website with nothing but tweaking articles is one of a million. What would make a libertarian magazine or website stand out from the crowd would be mentioning principles in every single article.
Reason is not such a magazine or website.
“just saying, fuck you, cut spending, over and over.”
Maybe you should be a bit more curious about all the philosophies ML just mentioned?
I am not sure there is a group of people I could give fewer fucks about then influencers.
True. They're like salesmen but setting their sights much lower.
Or just sell the platform to a someone who isn’t controlled by our greatest foreign adversary. But yeah, if TikTok went tits up tomorrow, it wouldn’t take long for the market to react.
100,000 out of 167 million or so is not a significant factor for policy making.
…many of the 100,000 independent workers who rely on TikTok as either a primary job or a side gig could face devastating economic consequences.
I wonder what the average monthly take is from posting bullshit on TikTok that these “independent workers” get. $50?
Yet another bullshit article.
As of May 2024, the average annual salary for a TikTok influencer in the United States is $131,874. However, income can vary widely based on several factors,
Google AI response
‘Average’? Same query for median shows “$15-25k”.
Plus I think “salary” isn’t the right term.
So there is nothing Tik Tok cannot do to avoid being shut out? Such dishonesty in framing from the left, much like the don't say gay bill. Since you cannot get past sentence 1 without lying to your audience I can't be bothered to read the rest of your dishonest article or simply assume your every statement thereafter are just more lies.
Brandon says you should sell. Sell. So shut the fuck up about it.
Just bake the cake, TikTok.
Nobody needs 2 sources of income. But people do need to be protected from their own poor decisions.
The dishonesty of pretending it's fine for the government to tell you to sell your property? Not even the fig leaf of eminent domain. "National security" is the root password to the constitution? Next you'll be saying garlic security is a national security problem.
Try a little honesty yourself, Mr. Glass House.
Reason was fine with someone being told to shut the fuck up and bake the cake.
Yes. Individualism has fallen off their radar. "Private property" doesn't mean squat when that includes the government telling you what to do with it.
What if it's the Chinese government telling you what to do with it?
They're pretty powerless influence American's behavior, except indirectly through fear causing our government to act.
They're a powerful influence on anyone who is in business with them.
And if those people are in business with them voluntarily, it's nobody else's business, is it?
If they're in business with a hostile foreign power, then, yes, it's everyone's business.
Who defines "hostile foreign power" absent a declaration of war? Do you support all the undeclared wars we've had since WW II? Do you really trust government executives and bureaucrats to make those decisions without any input from even Congress, let alone the people they don't represent?
If you support such unilateral bureaucratic decisions by faceless bureaucrats, you are a statist. Why doncha go peddle your statism somewhere it's more appreciated, like Salon of Huff Post, or go mainstream with the NYT or WaPo?
https://wondermark.com/c/1062/
Cite? And do you consider the ChiComs to be a threat to the US?
China's a threat to the US empire, but not to the US people.
Yes, because the way the ChiComs treat their own people is a good indicator of that.
The CCP can tell me all they want, but they don't have the guns and courts and jails to back it up here. That's the US government's arena.
You underestimate them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c785n9pexjpo
They have spies in the US to monitor their citizens here. I'm sure the US does that to any American in a hostile state too. It doesn't affect US citizens.
LOL
The federal government can even abrogate contracts. And there is no doubt that TikTok is a Chinese version of a Trojan Horse.
Trump also wanted to ban TikTok until ime of his cronies was found to be a major investor. I guess libertarians are into corruption too.
"many of the 100,000 independent workers who rely on TikTok as either a primary job or a side gig could face devastating economic consequences."
Support the ban or not, is it really impossible for these independent workers to put their little videos on YouTube or Facebook instead?
The actual business model of these influencers is advertising and SEO. If tiktok is banned, then their skill set isn't impacted. They'll just have to move it elsewhere.
And on the "law" side, advertising doesn't need further protection.
Most of these people are already on all the popular social media apps. The loss of any one of them is a loss of income. Building a subscriber base isn't so simple. Different types of users are on each platform.
Weren't you one of the ones defending the ability of SV to change their ToS at any time, often forcing people off platforms they had built a subscriber base?
What changed?
I wasn't defending the ability to change TOS at any time, just pointing out that this is what legally happens.
I believe, and feel free to retract, you were defending 230 giving silicon valley the right for unconsionable contract powers government used to pressure silicon valley to cancel accounts they didn't want.
It is the exact same issue you describe here as wrong against China, which also cancels accounts based on China's governments desires as part owner.
If your issue is the hostage holding of subscriber bases, you would also be against 230 being stretched the way it has to allow SV to have contracts that wouldn't be allowed in other industries.
It seems inconsistent.
OK. Yes I defended S230. I disagree with your characterization of its effect on contracts. Social media companies can ban users because all parties are private and agreed to a contract that allows that independent of S230.
Here the government is curtailing the rights of a private company and users regardless of any contract. The government mandate is the difference.
It's not a "private company"; it's a front for a hostile foreign government.
But if we're going that route Google and Facebook are fronts and spyware for a hostile US government org. They were even started with CIA money.
You're saying the US government is hostile to the US government?
The US government is hostile to the US population.
What STG just said.
The alphabet agencies are incredibly hostile to the plebs. Far more than Russia, China or even North Korea. Probably the most dangerous enemy of the American people there is.
That's the same excuse the US government uses to control things which are none of their business.
Who determines "hostile"? That what declarations of war are for. How many of the undeclared wars did you support? Are you against subsidies for Ukraine defending against the Russian invaders?
Stop supporting coercive governments making decisions for individuals. You can believe in individualism or statism, but not both.
Which is totally legal. Another example is Citgo, owned by the government of Venezuela.
Any large company originating from China isn’t really ‘private’.
On a related note, here’s a joke:
A Chinese general, a Chinese CEO, and a senior ChiCom government official walks into a restaurant. The maitre d’ asks “Will you be dining a”one sir?”
The hard part about building a subscriber base is building your reputation for fun/interesting/useful content. That won't go away. They'll just be losing one channel to connect with that subscriber base.
And even that "damage" can be trivially-easily mitigated by posting your other channels on TikTok right before the shut-down.
I disagree. I subscribe to YouTube channels but don't use other apps. I doubt I'm that unique.
So you're telling me that if YouTube announced that it was going away entirely and the channel providers you currently follow said "we're moving to VeeTube on Jan 19th", you'd give up on all those channels and abandon that whole part of your life rather than try out a new platform?
My point is that TikTok is not just going away for the influencers - it's going away for the readers too. The community is going to react to the change - the least likely reaction is to just give up.
So you're telling me that if YouTube announced that it was going away entirely and the channel providers you currently follow said "we're moving to VeeTube on Jan 19th", you'd give up on all those channels and abandon that whole part of your life rather than try out a new platform?
Kinda... There's 4 or 5 channels I really like that I'd find. There's another 50 or so I'd probably forget about if they didn't pop up in my feed. And those feeds and algorithms are key. It takes work, time and probably luck to get high rank in the algorithm. It's analogous to taking someone's automotive garage and saying just make a new garage. It's not so easy. Some customers will not make the switch.
And advertising is a parasitical business.
If too much of the population is advertising, then nobody is actually buying what is being advertised.
Products (of, in this case, actual value) exist independently to their marketing. But marketing is a colossal scam without it.
If nobody's buying it, then we're all saving our money and getting richer!
I wonder how many were shocked when they found out about quarterly taxes. I've been there. I doubt too many are well informed about this when they start. I truly believe that most don't really want to work a real job.
Bet many of then don't pay their taxes.
You might be surprised how many influencers are currently facing charges from the IRS. What do you think some of those new 87k useless eaters that the IRS was/is hiring are for?
So collecting taxes from tax scofflaws is wrong?
It seems that the only law that libertarians want enforced is illegal entry.
All income tax is immoral
Fucking this^
The influencers just don't know how quarterly taxes work and when the bill comes due they have already spent it all. The extra penalties for under payment can also hurt. You can't pay what you don't have.
Probably at some point I bet the tax rules are changed to require YouTube to deduct taxes.
I'm going to be real here - I think we can do without all these 'independent entrepreneurs' who make money by pushing mental illness on susceptible populations.
eTHOTs are bad enough, the 'neurodivergent' crowd is openly harming vulnerable people.
Yeah, I'm having trouble working up any tears for useless "influencers" who might be inconvenienced by the demise of a communist espionage tool.
What about all the poor sex workers when we made Commie espionage honey-traps illegal? Won’t somebody think of the poor commie spy sex workers?
As I've suggested here before—make prostitution an MOS.
Eric swawell hardest hit
What exactly are the Communists getting out of TikTok user info? Learning how to better target ads selling Communism or little red books?
I've asked the same question many times. Closest thing I got to an answer was your buddy Jesse calling me a leftist and ranting at me about something the voices in his head told him I think.
Poor sarc.
Communism often comes to young people, simply because they are too dumb to figure out why it doesn't work.
But the Communist Manifesto laid this out long before TikTok was exposed to the west, and we wouldn't have tolerated it from the Soviet Union then, so why tolerate it from China now?
Because they don't hate money fully?
"We"? Who is this "we" you talk of? The government? The US government? That is not "we", that is "them", they who think they have the right to tell me what to think and say. If you let them tell you what to believe about the USSR, then you learned nothing.
The royal "we", which means the US populace.
The ones from the CCP aren't selling any ism any more. There are no communists among the Communists. And really they have no idea what they're getting out of TikTok except possibly some magickal thinking.
Sorry, there are lots of good arguments against the TikTok ban but this isn't one of them. A ban on TikTok will shut down use by not only US "influencers" but also by all their US customers. They're not going to be out of work or even out of contact except very briefly because the business model is independent of the platform. They're just going to jump to another service and keep doing the same things.
Maybe the California legislature can require platforms to provide health insurance, holiday pay, paid child bonding leave, etc to these “influencers”.
Get on it, Gavin.
I won't be surprised when that happens. I confess it never occurred to me, but I'm sure it has already occurred to every statist out there, long ago.
The term "influencer" may elicit eye rolls, but whether these content creators are sharing do-it-yourself tips or mental health advice or merely pictures of a recent lunch outing, the entrepreneurship and income involved are real.
Which puts them squarely in the "Entertainment" sector of the economy. Which means they should all be falling under the existing rules of labor laws - including residuals or other income streams for taxation purposes, DRM, content rating, and so forth. Might even double-whammy them if they're picked up by a corporate brand for advertising purposes (which comes with its own slew of labor laws).
And, frankly, with the exception of a few notables, most "influencers" are a niche anyway - offering something of very little market value that doesn't help run the economic engine of a first world nation (unless you think the economy runs on narcissism). For all the emphasis folks put on filling very necessary jobs - agriculture, manufacturing, data entry, etc - which they rationalize as the utility behind legitimizing a bunch of border jumping criminals into society, what they're forgetting is that we've already got "57% of Gen Z" entering the workforce as "influencers" who have the same exact skillset of a fieldhand or an assembly line grunt.
Solution? Tax the "influencers" 98% of their income, and offer them huge offsets for taking their minimal skillset into a job with actual market value.
"The term "influencer" may elicit eye rolls..."
Yep.
"...unless you think the economy runs on narcissism..."
Now THERE'S a can of worms we can open up on a slow news day! I mean, aren't phony journos and influencers kinda in the same racket? Media? Advertising? Pretty big business...
Not to mention propaganda.
Being a truly effective influencer is illegal, for to be one is to promote XYZ without people catching on that you're paid to promote XYZ.
And then there's THIS:
https://www.tabletmag.com/feature/rapid-onset-political-enlightenment
A bit tedious, but explains a lot about how some inglorious, conniving scumbags manipulate the elitist/narcissist set to serve their own destruction. Must be the psyop that drives Reasonistas to pump out so much drivel here.
That was a good article. It is long.
I enjoyed the part about dems creating a circle jerk of "credibility" it describes the reason writer to a t
Yes. And it is a good link to keep handy when motherfuckers try to gaslight you for "conspiracy theory" - the last psyop they've got to fall back on now that racist, sexist, homo/trans/islama-phobe has backfired and shit all over them.
I picked the link up from Revolver, but I noticed it has appeared again on another site. Good! This should be textbook material; it should be everywhere.
Tax them. Now there's a libertarian thought. You fit right in with the Reason staff.
Only as a discouraging effort to put them to actual work.
I’m sure ENB could help them transition to an Onlyfans page, and escort work.
Yes, because their having satisfied customers is for you to decide, not them or your customers.
You really are fit for the next Reason staff opening.
Again, the idea is to discourage this useless "career" that produces literally nothing. I'm not just rolling my eyes here, I'm flat out saying that this is dangerous on an economic level.
I get it, you disagree. So disagree meaningfully. Start with explaining the benefit of "influencers" to a nation's (or even just a tribe's) overall economy. What goods do they produce? What advancements in technology do they innovate? What services do they provide? How do they improve anything?
Do we really want to encourage >50% of the incoming labor force to purse the career path of a clown?
I'm not going to say the world doesn't need entertainment. I will, however, say that when a disproportionate percentage of the incoming labor force is developing zero skills whatsoever they will inevitably become an unsupportable drain on society as a whole as their star fades and they have nothing useful to fall back on.
Now, granted, in every age - from Stone to Information - there have been plenty of useless people; people who eeked out an existence on the backs of those who envisioned a greater future and moved us forward socially, culturally, and economically. But we've generally encouraged the latter ever since we emerged from the Dark Ages, not the former.
It's only with this "influencer" generation that we seem to be actively encouraging the opposite. You accuse me of being fit for Reason? Take a look in the mirror pal. You're complaining about my tree, but you're ignoring the forest that is our metaphorical-becoming-quickly-literal Clown World. And for no reason other than you were triggered by the word "taxes."
Well, hey, I'm open to a better solution to culling this "influencer" problem. Do you have one? Or do you just want to complain, or pitch fantastical unreality - like, say, Reason staff tends to do; a pot calling the kettle black?
Economies are not fueled by and cannot run on narcissism. And nations rise and fall on their economic value. Americans were once a valuable commodity. Why would you encourage their devaluation by pandering to those who seek nothing more than to be clowns?
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WHAT A fvckin JOKE this rag is
How can you be independent without government help?
/reason
When Pimps have to register with the government, then we'll know what's in them.
My eyes got bigger with each sentence I read as I went deeper into this libertarian article. Keep not picking a side, Reason.
Seattle Times, helping me like Trump more every day:
Trump moves to replace officials whom new presidents traditionally leave alone
How much is the Reason foundation getting paid by the Chinese government to repeatedly call regulating spyware a First Amendment violation?
We should ask them how the weather is in Beijing.
Jeeperz........ The Socialists have gained employment at Reason...
"Laws that tie benefits like health insurance or retirement savings accounts to employment ... ?restricting? (Gov-Gun) benefits in this way wasn't a big issue because a larger majority of workers were traditional employees."
"But now our laws are failing a significant portion of the modern work force. State and federal policymakers can remove old-age barriers that restrict the flow of benefits to the independent work force."
Let me REPEAT THAT PART, "barriers that restrict the flow of benefits"
In other words: barriers that restrict Gov-Gun THEFT.
Libertarians for Mandatory Gov-Gun benefits???????
WTF!!!?!?!?!??!!!!
So, people who do not wish to earn a living as an employee should receive the benefits associated with an employment relationship? Yeah that makes perfect sense.
What [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] leads too.
"57 percent of Gen Z who say they want to be influencers, it's a dream job. When asked what they want to be when they grow up, the most popular occupation among children between 8 and 12 is a YouTuber."
"Scoff if you like, but young professionals are successfully opting out of ?traditional? (productive) work arrangements in favor of" being political ?free? ponies influences.
Never underestimate just how fast a society can start 'Gunning' down those 'icky' people for their lazy ivory-tower living once they get 'governments' monopoly of Gun-Force under their control.
?free? ponies for EVERYONE!!!! They just fall out of the sky?
>Already, 53 percent of Gen Z professionals are working freelance jobs full time.
What? That can't be right. Let me check your source...
>More than half (53%) of Gen Z freelancers are performing freelance work for at least 40 hours per week across a portfolio of different types of work.
That is not at all the same thing. You'd think with two authors you could check for accuracy.
I'll pu this in tick tok terms for you:
Stitch incoming;
"Laws that tie benefits like health insurance or retirement savings accounts to W-2 employment go back half a century, long before anyone could make millions off of 30-second dancing videos."
Those laws go back to when the government stuck their nose in employers business and capped salaries. But supposedly already fixed that. A major aspect of Obama care was the ability to get health insurance outside of employment. So no new law is needed for an independent contractor to get health insurance. They are guaranteed health insurance via marketplace insurance all they have to do is sign up for it. They can then as an independent contractor deduct the cost of the medical insurance on their taxes as self- employed medical insurance.
An IRA is designed to allow anyone to put money into retirement. No employer is needed, just income. If you want to put more than the amount allowed in a traditional IRA as a business owner(what a self-employed person is) you can use a SEP IRA to put a portion of your earnings into retirement.
So labor laws don't need to change to protect workers ability to access health insurance and retirement, you are just ranting along with your fellow gig workers that are trying to their cake and eat it too. By not tying benefits to employment you are allowing companies to screw employees on medicare and social security. And the state government out of unemployment taxes. If you want to work multiple jobs that's fine nothing prevents you from being a part time employee of multiple employees.
Either way please read some actual books instead of just watching a few TicToks before you decide to your a labor laws expert.