Is Surveillance Capitalism the New Unethical Norm?
Technology giants like Amazon, Google, and Facebook use AI to blur the lines between personalization and intrusion, wielding unprecedented power over democracy and personal freedom.
The TL;DR
This post discusses the concept of surveillance capitalism and its ethical implications, particularly in the case of Amazon's Kindle tracking. It highlights the fine line between personalization and invasive surveillance, along with the risks of manipulative advertising, privacy erosion, and AI’s role in creating an “AI oligopoly.” It also raises concerns about the power imbalance between corporations and individuals and the challenges of obtaining informed consent in the digital age.
Surveillance Capitalism Defined
Surveillance capitalism is a term coined by author and professor Shoshana Zuboff to describe the business model of technology companies that collect and sell data about their users to target them with advertising. These companies use various methods to track users' online activity, including cookies, web beacons, and device fingerprinting. They also collect data from social media, mobile apps, and other sources.
Ethical Implications of Surveillance Capitalism
Surveillance capitalism has a number of ethical implications. One concern is that it can be used to manipulate users.
By understanding users' interests and preferences, surveillance capitalists can create persuasive advertising more likely to lead to a purchase. This can be a problem, especially for vulnerable populations, such as children or people with mental health conditions.
Another concern is that surveillance capitalism can erode privacy. Users may not know how their data is being collected and used, particularly with respect to targeted advertising. This lack of transparency can lead to feelings of distrust and anxiety.
Finally, surveillance capitalism hurts democracy. Surveillance capitalists collect and sell data about users., which gives them the power to influence elections, suppress dissent, and create echo chambers.
Are you a free subscriber? We have a deal for you! Get 20% off our already low premium member rate for one year. You get access to all our posts, plus other perks. And we promise not to “surveil” you. ;-)
Amazon’s Kindle Tracking: An Ethical Dilemma
Customer data is a valuable asset for marketers. You can use it to create detailed customer profiles, understand their needs and wants, and target them with personalized advertising, which leads to increased sales and customer loyalty.
However, in exploring the ethical dimensions of AI-driven marketing strategies, we would be remiss not to examine real-world applications that have stirred debate. One such instance is Amazon's use of data collected from Kindle users.
Amazon's practice of tracking Kindle users' reading habits — what books they read, how long they read, and when — is a potent example of the ethical complexities in digital marketing.
The company also collects data on its customers' online shopping habits, browsing history, and search queries. It uses this data to create detailed customer profiles, which it then uses to target customers with personalized advertising.
This method epitomizes the core ethical issue in AI-driven marketing: the fine line between personalization and invasive surveillance. Amazon can gain deep insights into individual preferences and behaviors by amassing detailed personal data.
However, this practice also risks overstepping into users' personal lives, raising questions about user consent and the extent to which companies should use such data commercially.
Personalized advertising can border on manipulation, influencing user behavior subtly and potentially impacting their autonomy in decision-making. There is also the ethical consideration of the psychological impacts, such as creating unrealistic needs and fostering addictive behavior.
In Chokepoint Capitalism, Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow point out:
“Right from the beginning, [Amazon] planned to use books we searched for and bought to gather data on us to sell us more stuff and, ideally, take over the world.
“This is the true heart of ‘surveillance capitalism’ — not the idea that Big Tech uses data-mining and machine learning to create control systems … Rather, Big Tech abuses monopoly power to deprive us of choice by limiting what we can buy, redirecting our searches to hide rivals’ products and locking us into its ecosystem.”
At the end of the day, there's a fine line between personalized service and invasive surveillance. Surveillance capitalism turns personal data into a commodity.
This issue raises ethical concerns about the reduction of personal experience and interactions to mere data points for the sake of profit. A corporation like Amazon wields significant power over individual users, who frequently do not have adequate control over the collection, use, or sharing of their data.
If you believe in paying artists and creators fairly and want to contribute to ending chokepoint capitalism, buy the DRM-free ebook. It’s available on Amazon too, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
The MEGO Effect and the Challenges of Informed Consent in the Digital Age
Often, the terms and conditions that users agree to use a service or platform are lengthy and filled with legal jargon that is difficult for the average user to understand.
MEGO, an acronym for "My Eyes Glaze Over," is an expression that describes a common reaction people have when confronted with long, complex, or technical information that is difficult to digest or understand.
In the context of data privacy and user agreements, MEGO refers to the tendency of individuals to lose interest, stop paying attention, or skim through lengthy and complicated texts.
The MEGO effect raises significant concerns about informed consent in the digital age. It suggests that users may agree to terms, conditions, and privacy policies without understanding what they consent to because these lengthy documents are too confusing and cumbersome to read.
This challenges the ethicality and effectiveness of the consent process, as true informed consent requires that individuals understand and agree to the terms to which they consent.
Marketers must navigate predictive analytics and behavioral analysis carefully when using powerful tools, as demonstrated in the Amazon case, taking into account the ethical implications. It underscores the importance of transparent data policies, respect for user privacy, and obtaining informed consent.
Digital marketers who plan to harness AI in place of cookies should always keep the ethical responsibility they bear in mind. The goal should be to offer personalized content that adds value to the customer experience while ensuring consumer privacy is not compromised in pursuing marketing objectives.
From Digital to AI Oligarchy: The Dominance of Google and Facebook in Online Advertising
Considering that most of the world’s data and online commerce is controlled by a few big players, namely Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook, how can smaller players with fewer resources compete?
Dr. Zunaid Kazi explores this in the article “The Dark Side of the New AI: AI Oligopoly,” stating, “...digital oligarchs are now rapidly evolving into AI oligarchs, giving them even more power over our lives and society The growth of this new oligopoly is fueled not just by their immense wealth but also by their control over available data resources.”
In other words, AI is great for those companies with deep pockets who can afford to play.
Building an AI system is expensive. The competition for top AI talent is fierce, and the pool is small. Companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google are the apex predators. There are barriers to entry for smaller entities that reduce diversity and innovation in the tech industry.
Think about it: How often do Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos make the news? How often are they mentioned on Twitter, LinkedIn, or other social media platforms?
Food for Thought: How often do we hear diverse voices in Big Tech? How often do we hear about smaller startups? This is an issue I hope to explore further in a future article, but I mention it here to prove a point.
When a few companies hold all the power, the potential for corruption and abuse becomes even greater.
The overwhelming presence of Big Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook (the “triopoly”) in the digital advertising landscape raises significant ethical considerations, particularly in the context of AI and user privacy.
Together, they hold 64% of the global digital advertising market, according to Insider Intelligence, and have reshaped marketing strategies through their advanced AI algorithms
This kind of control stifles innovation and limits opportunities for smaller players. For marketers, this raises ethical questions about supporting a diverse and competitive advertising ecosystem versus leveraging the extensive reach of these few platforms.
It's an ethical conundrum, for sure.
Despite these concerns, Google and Facebook will likely continue dominating the online advertising market for the foreseeable future. Their innovative approaches to utilizing AI for advertising continue to evolve, setting trends in the industry.
However, marketers must know the ethical implications of engaging with these platforms, particularly about data privacy, user consent, and supporting a competitive market landscape.
What do you think about the ethical implications of surveillance capitalism? Leave a comment and let us know your views.
Like what you read here?
Share the newsletter with your friends, colleagues, and AI enthusiasts.