2.

What are some of the most significant characteristics of surveillance

capitalism, according to Zuboff, that arose after the end of the Cold War, and how
do they represent a change from what existed earlier? Please indicate, with your
reasons, how you assess this argument.

Zuboff formulated an argument based on this new capitalism, “surveillance capitalism”, officially
named in 2007, where the people were abandoned by institutions (258). The trajectory leading
up to our development of “surveillance” capitalism began in the early to mid-90s, with the
beginning of the prevalence of “informational capitalism” (257). This new form of capitalism was
discovered at Google in 2001/2002, where it was “tested, and elaborated, and institutionalized,
and grew from there” (259). This novel capitalism quickly dominated the field, because it gave
companies, like Google, a shortcut that allowed their processes to be both faster and more
efficient. One key aspect of surveillance capitalism is the use of “instrumentarian power”, in
which human behavior is turned into a commodity for both modification and monetization, often
without the user’s knowledge (260). For surveillance capitalism, this commodified data then
translates directly into social relations, because it allows for “exclusive capabilities” which serve
as an “enormous source of social inequality” (261). This inequality is present because of the
structure of surveillance capitalism; one which allows only the internet companies constituting it
or those who are playing these markets that the internet companies have created to participate.
Another integral component of surveillance capitalism is its dependence on the “logic of
accumulation”; the user is encouraged to continue and heighten their usage because this usage
creates more data, which in turn allows for more monetization of this data for the company
(262). Finally, surveillance capitalism implements “economies of action”, where increased
intervention in usage allows for an increase in ability to promote action, therefore also creating
more precise predictions (263). One key area that surveillance capitalism departs from the
capitalism of the past is its extent of control; Google, for example, would want a “third modernity”
where their main premise is to “control everything” (263). This creates a disconnect between the
internet and the user that was not quite there before. Now there is no dialogue, there is a loss of
the connection and power of the user. The “radical indifference” implemented at Google and in
surveillance capitalism sets it apart from companies like Apple because they must rely on the
user in order to promote their product; for Google, this need for the satisfaction of the user is not
there, because the reality of the search engine is that it is virtually unavoidable. There is a
“shallow falling between” the supply and demand in surveillance capitalism which did not exist
before, one which fundamentally alters the relationship between capitalism and the people using
it, in a way that Zuboff argues is entirely unhealthy (266). I agree that the development of
surveillance capitalism has cornered us as users into a relationship that is often unwanted, and
yet almost entirely unavoidable. For a personal example, Google commodifies the data it gets
from me looking up synonyms for this essay, but unless I want to physically find and browse a
dictionary, something which would be both inconvenient in the context of time and location for
me, I will begrudgingly use the convenient search engine.