
'How to destroy surveillance capitalism,' a book-length rebuttal to S. Zuboff - pslattery
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59
======
danpattn
The article ignores one of the biggest drivers of tech concentration, network
effects. This is where 'tech exceptionalism' really stems from.

Facebook got big, not just from the failures of competitors or from acquiring
them, but because the platform became more useful as more people joined.
Network effects took over once Facebook hit a critical mass of users.

This happens with most social platforms, they either wither and slowly die or
they hit a critical mass and grow towards monopolies. There is a reason
everyone in a society speaks the same language. There is a reason why we only
have a few operating systems. There is a reason everyone gravitated towards a
few social platforms.

Enforcing antitrust laws is only a temporary fix. Unless everyone moves onto
free and open source platforms where network effects can't hand control over
to a central authority, this story will just repeat itself again and again
with a new boogeyman each time.

This trend was identified 25 years ago. Before the internet took over business
and before Facebook and Google were founded.
[https://hbr.org/1996/07/increasing-returns-and-the-new-
world...](https://hbr.org/1996/07/increasing-returns-and-the-new-world-of-
business)

~~~
specialist
The question isn't how a network grows, but how it maintains it's dominance.

How did Facebook, for instance, avoid the fate of every prior social network?
Its pivots (Instagram, WhatsApp, newsfeed, etc) were uniquely successful.

Why? How?

~~~
bsder
> How did Facebook, for instance, avoid the fate of every prior social
> network?

By buying its competitors.

The complete lack of anti-trust enforcement is a big deal.

If Facebook couldn't buy its competitors, now it has to use money and
development to compete. And it may or may not be successful.

~~~
danpattn
Antitrust would help, maybe even a lot, but would the world be that different
if Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp were independent companies?
Things might be a bit better but we'd still be stuck with the same handful of
platforms we already have.

Facebook is just the final form of the monster that silicon valley continually
creates. Every unicorn software startup has the same strategy: create a
competitive app, get VC backing, blitzscale until you are dominant, then abuse
your power to monetize the platform.

The only difference is how far along a market is in the cycle. Desktop
operating systems went through this in the 1990s, eCommerce went through this
in the 2000s, smartphone operating systems went through this in the late
2000s, social media went through this in the 2010s, ridesharing is going
through it now, autonomous vehicles will go through it soon, and AI platforms
will go through it when they arrive.

It's the same story everywhere you look and the process begins at the startup
stage. Attacking companies that reach the end of the cycle won't stop the
cycle from happening.

I would love to see Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Google broken up.
I would cheer it. But it won't save us. It will only change who owns the leash
we're controlled by.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care whether I'm being controlled
by a millionaire, a billionaire, or a trillionaire. I just care that I'm being
controlled. The only way to escape is to own digital infrastructure that you
rely on and that possibility only exists with free and open source software.

~~~
bsder
> but would the world be that different if Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and
> WhatsApp were independent companies?

I think it would.

If YouTube were independent, Google would have to try to invent it and then
compete against YouTube. Or, perhaps, YouTube would be simply unsustainable
without the infinite coffers of Google to support it. At which point we might
get a smattering of paid video services that were actually viable.

If a business couldn't automatically get sold to a FAANG, you might actually
have to make decisions to run it rather than lottery out. If you are running
the business, you might actually eclipse one of the established companies.

Google is not in some inherently unassailable position.

Google has a _TERRIBLE_ customer service record and pisses people off
immensely. Google Cloud could be completely displaced by a competitor--if it
weren't backed up by Google's immense amount of cash from other divisions.
Gmail is a commodity and could certainly be displaced if it had to operate
independently. etc.

> The only way to escape is to own digital infrastructure that you rely on and
> that possibility only exists with free and open source software.

While I agree, if we don't get the common people on board, the end result will
be service too expensive for most of us (current example: running fiber to
your house).

------
mark_l_watson
I am 3/4 of the way through Zuboff's wonderful book on surveillance capitalism
and I am half way into this article. I think Corey makes some good points on
which parts of surveillance capitalism are most dangerous and deserve the
hardest push-back but Zuboff's book is still important and I hope sincerely
that this article's critique does not dissuade people from reading the book.

~~~
specialist
I've been struggling with Doctorow's tech exceptionalism thesis for a while.
(One of my geek brothers is a huge fan, so I get plenty of opportunity to
founder.) It seems like we're directionally similar, so I really want to be in
alliance.

But I just can't figure out what he's talking about.

It's the same feeling of unease I get trying to grok Gore Vidal, Christopher
Hitchens, Greg Palast, and other curmudgeons.

"Okay! Stop! You've convinced me! Stop! Just tell me what you want me to do! I
need action steps!"

I imagine my reaction to Doctorow is how most people react to me.

\--

That said.

I reject the dichotomy of idealism vs materialism.

My own thesis is still poorly formed. But the nugget is the growing evidence
that belief systems are about identity. And that much of today's social
pathologies, of most concern to me, are the stimulus which most effectively
activate identity.

In other words, using Doctorow's first example of flat earthers, the
proclaimed beliefs of those adherents has nothing to do with ideologies,
facts, persuasion, whatever. It's only about identity and therefore acceptance
by that social group.

Most simply: Cults.

The toxic part is the automated isolation and amplification of those
identities. Those machine learning algorithms (aka newsfeed) that finds the
difference that makes the difference and ruthlessly exploits that delta for
profit.

\--

Skipping the big section about intellectual property...

(But I will say that I've become a fan of the "information wants to be
expensive" school of thought.)

\--

 _" We can work to fix the internet by breaking up Big Tech and depriving them
of monopoly profits, or we can work to fix Big Tech by making them spend their
monopoly profits on governance. But we can’t do both. We have to choose
between a vibrant, open internet or a dominated, monopolized internet
commanded by Big Tech giants that we struggle with constantly to get them to
behave themselves."_

There's a lot of daylight between repeated radical cashectomies, which I
support, and nationalizing these platforms as utilities, which I also support.

One crazy notion would be to simply treat digital markets like physical
markets. Rule of law, consumer protection, right to appeal... You know, the
usual stuff found in modern civil society.

Another crazy notion is to identify the undesired feedback loops, then break
or bend them. Freemium and targeted advertising seem like two pretty good
candidates for the chopping block.

Edit: Sorry, should have included my original radical, and therefore obviously
correct, proposal. Extend property rights to personal data. If someone's
making a buck off my data, I want my cut.

~~~
ColinHayhurst
Well put.

AI algorithms (recommendations and ranking):

\- help and amplify cults

\- optimise advertising revenue

~~~
specialist
Thanks.

Doctorow's article prompted me to revisit Zuboff's thesis.

I now think both Doctorow and myself, in different ways, are completely wide
of the mark.

Zuboff's analysis is far more potent than I've been able to grasp or
articulate. For instance, she moots the "paradox of privacy" by getting back
to first principles of market design and choice theory.

I really wish I was better prepared on this topic. Sorry.

------
dotcoma
tl;dr:

But what if their voracious appetite for data is because the advertising
format they are selling is the worst ever rubbish in history?

------
gnusty_gnurc
I recall listening to her on EconTalk and being struck by how baseless and
unconvincing she sounded - as though she was just stringing together hysteria
and buzzwords without any reasoning.

Russ is a very skilled interviewer, and she seemed unable to answer basic
questions, seemed like you really only needed to take a second to reflect on
what she said and push her a bit on the logic, etc. and it fell apart. Just a
constant stream of vague flowing speech.

[https://www.econtalk.org/shoshana-zuboff-on-surveillance-
cap...](https://www.econtalk.org/shoshana-zuboff-on-surveillance-capitalism/)

~~~
EliRivers
Try the book. When writing, you can go back in time and change your words
until you've expressed yourself adequately, and can add references.

