This study examines the platformization of Self-Employed Professionals through the lens of Brazilian clinical psychologists' experience, analyzing how digital labour on social media intersects with technostress and health related risks. Grounded in studies of platformization (Grohmann, 2020) and technostress (Salanova Soria, 2007), the research adopts a mixed-methods approach that includes in-depth interviews with ten psychologists and a survey of 170 professionals (2023–2024) utilizing the Technostress Assessment Scale (RED/TIC) (Carlotto & Câmara, 2010). It positions psychology as a paradigmatic case of platformized liberal work, where professionals increasingly depend on social media for client acquisition, visibility, and self-entrepreneurship, blurring the lines between work, identity, and personal life. Technostress—defined as work-related stressors linked to technology use and responses to adverse outcomes—has been utilized in occupational health research to understand psychosocial risks from digitalization and platformization of work, correlating with negative self-assessed health, anxiety, and burnout (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Borle et al., 2021).

Findings reveal that 9% of participants experience high technostress, 40% moderate, and 51% low levels, with fatigue and anxiety as key dimensions. These outcomes stem from pressures to remain connected, produce content, and internalize platform dynamics. Notably, 41% cited social media as a primary client source, yet this reliance heightened stress due to demands for visibility, audience engagement and internalized dynamics of platforms. Younger professionals, especially early-career individuals in financially unstable positions, were disproportionately affected, often normalizing stress. Paradoxically, despite platformization's perceived necessity, traditional referral networks remained dominant, challenging assumptions about digital labor's inevitability.

The study highlights contradictions in platformized liberal work: algorithmic visibility regimes compel entrepreneurial self-promotion, yet outcomes remain inconsistent; blurred work-life boundaries exacerbate technostress, yet 32% did not categorize content creation as “work,” complicating time management; peer stigmatization of digital labor contributes to feelings of isolation, while reliance on platforms alters professional hierarchies.

Challenges in quantifying content production time and unrecognized technostress further normalize suffering. This invisibility is intensified by the stigmatization of social media content creation within peer groups, reflecting academia's neglect of digital labour debates. Despite these challenges, some participants derive enhanced professional visibility and fulfillment from creative content production. However, these benefits coexist with precarity, as professionals individually bear the risks associated with platforms, reflecting broader trends of uberization (Abílio, 2020). There is an urgent need to expand the debate, prioritizing these professionals' mental health and understanding the contradictions inherent to these emerging work dynamics.