On the misbegotten phrase “surveillance capitalism”

The loaded phrase surveillance capitalism has been in circulation since at least 2014, but it came into much wider use this year with Shoshana Zuboff’s book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The phrase means the system of extremely widespread surveillance by giant private corporations, entailing the systematic invasion of our privacy as well as control and abuse of our personal data.

I am opposed to the phenomenon that the phrase names, but I also am opposed to the phrase itself. How so? As I’ve made amply clear in this blog, I think we should care much more about privacy, and indeed we should be hardcore about it. Moreover, the best defense we have against incursions on our privacy by Big Tech is to decentralize social media (and other data, too, come to think of it) and to embrace data self-ownership.

The problem with the misbegotten name “surveillance capitalism” is that it implies that it is because of capitalism that we currently live under a regime of surveillance through social media (as well as financial, medical, and other data). This is nonsense. Indeed, it should be obvious why it is nonsense. But I enjoy explaining obvious things, and sadly it sometimes seems necessary. So here goes.

It isn’t capitalism per se that is responsible for our massive surveillance. The Internet was capitalistic in 1999 but did not feature 2019 levels of surveillance. We could still institute new decentralized systems of data exchange that would make what Zuboff is pleased to call “surveillance capitalism” much more difficult. Moreover, massively intrusive surveillance can be expected to happen, and actually does happen, under socialism, as it does in China.

The reason we live under a regime of massive surveillance is not economic or political but technological: blame it on the cloud. Because we need to sync data on our various devices, and between large networks of people, our data came to be put in the cloud. Though they could have been, different networks were not made interoperable, so that you and I could take exclusive control of our data if we wanted to. Instead, each of the Big Tech giants—Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.—came to have its own internal data standards which allowed it to operate its own walled garden, insulated from the others and from smaller competitors. The economic system of capitalism is, quite simply, governments permitting free markets to operate with comparatively little regulation. The presence of such a system is not enough to explain why we found ourselves with such proprietary standards and walled gardens.

If you are still not convinced, then imagine, if you will, that the Democratic left took control and converted America to the sort of government-controlled economy so many democratic socialists want with increasing desperation. That would not make it more likely that we would adopt a system of neutral, open standards. Why would it? Data standards and our economic systems certainly seem to have little to do with each other. Indeed, a socialist economy would be much more likely to impose various kinds of surveillance and top-down control. After all, such control is essentially what “market socialism” is all about. In the market socialist economies that the American and European left hanker after, giant governments and massive corporations would naturally work together to surveil the populace via the social media panopticon. Not for nothing has the Western left-wing commentariat backpedaled on their original expressions of horror at Chinese social credit system. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad, some are saying.

And that, of course, would be surveillance socialism.

By contrast, the adoption of common, open standards that would allow us to own and serve our own data without fear of interference by massive authorities, corporate or governmental, would essentially be an individualist, pro-liberty system, much as the Internet itself was and to some extent still is.

The irony is rich indeed when giant institutions like Facebook and Twitter are led by avowed progressives but, because they are corporations, it is capitalism that is blamed for their immoral power-grab. At best it could be blamed on corporatism. What’s the difference, you ask? Capitalism is defined by and highlights the freedom of economic interactions. But, you ask, wasn’t it corporate freedom that allowed Big Tech to take control? Not really; not necessarily. Corporate freedom greatly underdetermines why our privacy has come to be systematically violated in 2019. In other words, it’s not enough to explain the problem. Corporatism, by contrast, involves the wielding of power by giant corporations; by now, it is clear that it was the desire to shore up their power, economic power to be sure but also ultimately their political power, that motivated Big Tech to make our data into their private fiefdoms. So the more apt term is, surely, surveillance corporatism.

Indeed, it is only a free market system that could be counted on to support and guarantee any future possibility of privacy, or freedom from surveillance. If enough of us are left free to build network of decentralized social media, decentralized (and properly encrypted) cloud storage, and encrypted communication, then how will it be possible for us to be monitored, except with our very clear acquiescence (as when we write public blog posts)? If we join together in decentralized networks, it will be impossible for us to be subjected to the same sort of surveillance. Well, it will be impossible if we are left alone.

But governments could require that we make our data capable of being monitored. Those politicians and bureaucrats who have insisted on having (probably unworkable) government back doors for encryption fall into this camp. The problem is that progressives and socialists ultimately want to regulate (if not collectively own) pretty much everything. But to do that, they need to surveil everything; they certainly can’t permit conversations and economic transactions going on out of earshot.

So let’s call such a system of government-sponsored regulation, indeed, surveillance socialism and possibly surveillance corporatism. Unlike “surveillance capitalism,” those really would be apt sobriquets, because it would be the essentially socialist demand for regulation or collective ownership that would require our data to be left open to government surveillance—and indeed, perhaps also to corporate surveillance by the wealthy friends of politicians. Such chummy back-scratching is, after all, how market socialism, or corporatism, works.


by

Posted

in

,

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

8 responses to “On the misbegotten phrase “surveillance capitalism””

  1. Clairvaux

    Unfortunately, obvious things need to be explained at an alarming rate nowadays, and here is a splendid bit of (very much needed) explaining.

  2. This is false logic. Capitalism as a practice can be based on various things, one of which is surveillance. When it is, that is by definition surveillance capitalism. Sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it’s a perfectly logical usage.

    1. Clairvaux

      Suggesting a perfectly logical argument is dictated by “feelings” (therefore invalid) is usual dishonest leftist tactics.

      Leftists thrive on emotions, as opposed to facts and arguments. Unsurprisingly, they project their own mores on their opponents.

      Your comment is entirely devoid of facts and arguments. All you say is, “capitalism can be based on surveillance”. That’s on the face of a whole article which explains why it’s not the case.

      You accuse Larry Sanger of false logic, but you don’t even make yourself an attempt at using logic.

      1. Angie

        I think what Larry is trying to say is that the problem of surveillance is not inherently tied to the problem of capitalism. It is possible to have either a capitalist or socialist market and still have issues with mass surveillance, both by governments and by corporations. Larry seems to be more concerned with corporate surveillance, which can obviously be accessed by governments through sales or warrants. I think he is simply trying to unpack and rethink the term “surveillance capitalism.” I think Eric is simply trying to make the claim that “surveillance capitalism” is real, and that Larry has not proved it does not exist. However, I think Larry is only trying to delineate political issues and surveillance issues. We can enjoy capitalism without state or corporate surveillance. We can also have a socialist state that is heavy on surveillance as well. Larry would just like to reframe the argument purported in Zuboff’s book. Although I agree Larry has not proven (and I’m not sure he set out to prove) that surveillance capitalism exists, he simply would like to discuss the problems of corporate surveillance and is gently reminding us to reconsider these terms (I think).

        1. Thanks again 🙂

  3. Angie

    I think what Eric is trying to say is that there is such a thing as “surveillance capitalism”. I don’t think Larry was trying to imply there was not; I think he was merely suggesting that capitalism and mass surveillance can and should be delineated as terms. Mass surveillance is not, inherently, a product of capitalism. We could enjoy a capitalist market and country without being prisoners of the panopticon of unjust and indiscriminate surveillance.

  4. Angie Bird

    I think what Larry is trying to say is that the problem of surveillance is not inherently tied to capitalism. It is possible to have either a capitalist or socialist market and still have issues with mass surveillance, either by governments or corporations (or both). Larry seems to be more concerned with corporate surveillance, which, I would like to point out, can be accessed by governments through sales or warrants.

    I think Larry is simply trying to unpack and rethink the term “surveillance capitalism.” Oftentimes, we pair two words, one of which has a negative connotation, to make the other word seem kind of evil. So, for example, if we say surveillance is bad, we can call it “surveillance capitalism” to imply that it’s a fundamental issue with our economic system (which, therefore, must also be bad). However,
    capitalism has existed long before the heavy corporate (and government) surveillance we experience today. Thus, the two are not inherently linked.

    I think Eric is simply trying to make the argument that “surveillance capitalism” is real, and that Larry has not proved it does not exist. However, I think Larry is only trying to delineate market issues and surveillance issues. We can enjoy capitalism without corporate surveillance. We can also have a socialist state that is heavy on surveillance as well. As such, we can tackle issues of mass surveillance without appealing to problems in our economic system.

    However, the issue with corporatism is that corporations are, usually, capitalist in nature. The reason they accumulate so much data is to better understand their market so that they can sell products. This information is then used by governments to identify dissenters, which can interfere with free trades of information. A government which, usually, aims to reinforce the capitalist system by supporting these large corporations. Because they are so successful at selling products, they are able to invest large amounts of money into both lobbyists and electoral campaigns. Politicians, who seek power and influence, then pander to those who invest in them. As such, capitalism reigns supreme.

    Larry puts forth the opposing argument that socialist states could also use mass surveillance to find dissenters and ensure nobody speaks out against socialism. However, that would be an issue of political surveillance, not corporate surveillance (unless you want to consider a socialist government as a corporation unto itself, but that is an argument way out of scope for a blog post reply!).

    I think Larry is trying to find a balance to differentiate corporatism from capitalism. How can we create a world where competition, free markets, and the beautiful aspects of technology can thrive, without arbitrarily subjecting free individuals to the unjust and indiscriminate scrutiny we now face? How can we harness the amazing power and collaborative efforts such as Google, Wikipedia, and YouTube, to encourage education, freedom of the press, and a free and open society, when those same technologies are so easily used to keep us in a surveillance prison (panopticon).

    For example, I personally love the author Oscar Wilde. However, he is a famed homosexual and is associated with French authors who write romantic books about their young (very young) lovers. Some authors and historical accounts claim Mr. Wilde had sex with minors as well as with other men. Should I be persecuted for being interested in these authors, in the history and mores of the subcultures to which they belonged? Would I be persecuted for trying to learn more about them by checking out one if their books from the library, or reading an article on Wikipedia? Shall we all ban Lolita? Where do we draw the line in what constitutes evidence to convict, pathologize, or publicly shame an individual?

    I believe Larry would just like to reframe the argument purported in Zuboff’s book. Although I agree Larry has not proven (and I’m not sure he set out to prove) that surveillance capitalism does not exist, I do think he has made an excellent point in trying to differentiate between corporatism and capitalism and would like to gently remind us to reconsider these terms (I think).

    1. Thank you Angie. I believe I agree with your Larry. He seems to be a smart guy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *