Surveillance Capitalism: Resistance and Ideas for a New Digital Media System
At first, personalized ads and content might seem like good ideas. It’s nice to have a digital feed that caters to our tastes and filters out oversaturated, repetitive media. However, are you aware that the ads and content catered to you are shifting your behavior, tracking your data, and predicting your next click? While many are aware of privacy invasions online, many aren’t aware of the extent or the consequences of this harmful system. Few know what the term for this is, and fewer know what we can do to address this problem.
Especially with the amount of misinformation on the internet, I think it’s essential to support this issue textually to know how to move forward. In this article, I will use the book Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff to situate the problem, explore cases of surveillance capitalism, propose solutions for resistance, and imagine possibilities for a very different kind of digital media system that could address this pressing issue.
In Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff defines Surveillance capitalism as “[a] new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction, and sales” (Zuboff 8). She further contends that surveillance capitalism, unlike traditional capitalism, “cannot be realized without the technologies and the social relations of surveillance” (Zuboff 8). With large tech monopolies like Google and Facebook monetizing people's online data through their internet behaviors, user details are essentially treated and commercialized as products. We produce value for these companies just by interacting and scrolling on the internet, with our behavior being collected as individual profiles and sold to advertisers without our consent. Zuboff explains that past behavior is good for predicting the future, and introduces several key concepts: “Behavior surplus,” which is user data that is used to change people's behaviors, and “instrumentarian power,” which is the act of controlling human behavior through prediction, conditioning, tuning, and manipulating behavior. Clearly, surveillance capitalism is a threat to democracy and personal autonomy. Zuboff warns us that despite seemingly increased "personalization," we possess almost no protection for individual liberty and economic interests.
So what can be done? Although Zuboff does a great job explaining the problem, she spends little time discussing what actually can be done. Nonetheless, she does offer a few suggestions. Zuboff suggests that to address the issue of surveillance capitalism, the public needs to understand the problem and express their opinion. We need regulations and an alternative internet environment. In an article in The Harvard Gazette, she outlines three essential strategies: “First, we need a sea change in public opinion. This begins with the power of naming. It means awakening to a sense of indignation and outrage. We say, ‘No.’ We say, ‘This is not OK’” (The Harvard Gazette). Second, we need to develop laws and regulations to address privacy, antitrust, and the mechanics of surveillance capitalism. Zuboff says, “We also need to develop new laws and regulatory institutions that specifically address the mechanisms and imperatives of surveillance capitalism” (The Harvard Gazette). Lastly, we need to establish incentives for companies to fund competitive alternatives for a different digital ecosystem. She says, “Every survey of internet users has shown that once people become aware of surveillance capitalists’ backstage practices, they reject them. That points to a disconnect between supply and demand: a market failure. So once again we see a historic opportunity for an alliance of companies to found an alternative ecosystem — one that returns us to the earlier promise of the digital age as an era of empowerment and the democratization of knowledge” (The Harvard Gazette).
Other possibilities for resistance include using decentralized technologies in order to ensure that personal data is more secure. Pixelfed, a decentralized social media platform, is a privacy-respecting alternative to Instagram. Boycott movements and media literacy education can also be tools for resistance. Yet another idea is to limit monopolistic acquisitions made by these tech companies so that they don’t become too powerful. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Cory Doctorow, the author of How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism argues that “acquisitions that tend to strengthen a company’s monopoly should not be allowed, and even purchases of smaller companies (like Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram) should be blocked if they have the effect of removing a potential future competitor or reducing customer choice . . . more than anything else they need to be broken up, not just brought to heel” (Columbia Journalism Review). By limiting conglomerates, large tech companies can have less power over users.
However, resistance is simply not enough. To avoid surveillance capitalism altogether, we need a new and decentralized digital media system that is built on users' consent. This system would be democratically owned, designed in the public interest, and representative of a wide range of diverse voices and information. Users can also opt out of certain algorithms (where algorithms are checked for bias, are transparent and regulated, and users can turn them off), and users will only be shown ads similar to their existing search query instead of their past data. As a result, market power will not be controlled by conglomerates, leveling the playing field for many different legitimate companies to have reach on the internet.
There are many ways this system can be established. A first approach is to switch to a SaaS/ subscription model (Software as a Service) or license model for social media apps so that privacy-aware media companies can still make profits through monthly payments from the public. Other options include designing user-owned internet services with democratic policies and economic incentives for those who participate. These systems would all help resist surveillance capitalism by promoting public interest. However, we must spread awareness of these ideas and allow everyone to understand the issue. Awareness can be spread through protests, social media posts, and emailing officials. Then, laws must be created to help people have authority over their data. Privacy laws, regulation laws on algorithms, and scrolling limitations on social media apps can help protect user safety from surveillance capitalism and create an internet system that’s safer and in the people’s best interest.
Overall, Zuboff does a great job setting up the problem of surveillance capitalism but doesn’t spend much time focusing on solutions. This is where we must pick up. By working to build a digital media system that’s decentralized, democratic, and privacy-respecting, we can develop a strong solution to surveillance capitalism. Essential steps for putting a new system into place include spreading awareness and creating regulations on privacy and algorithms to ensure our safety. If we take these actions, we can reclaim a more protected and healthier media ecosystem for everyone.
