Chapter 34 Exercises: Surveillance Capitalism and Its Critics

Exercise 34.1 — Primary Source Analysis: Zuboff's Three Laws

Type: Textual analysis | Difficulty: Intermediate | Time: 45 minutes

Zuboff proposes three "laws" of surveillance capitalism. This exercise develops your ability to analyze primary source arguments rigorously.

The Three Laws:

First Law: "Everything can be informated." Any behavior can be translated into data.

Second Law: "Surveillance capitalism claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data."

Third Law: "The prediction products that are derived from behavioral surplus are sold in behavioral futures markets."

For each law, answer:

1. What empirical claim is being made? Is this a factual assertion that can be verified or falsified? What evidence supports it? What evidence might contradict it?

2. What normative claim is embedded? Does the law imply that this is wrong? What values does it invoke?

3. What follows from the law for policy? If this law is true, what should be done about it? Does the law point toward a specific remedy?

4. What does a sympathetic critic say? State the most serious objection to each law from someone who takes Zuboff's concerns seriously but finds the specific formulation problematic.

Final synthesis (300 words): Are Zuboff's three laws a useful framework for understanding the data economy? What do they capture well? What do they miss?

Exercise 34.2 — Data Colonialism vs. Surveillance Capitalism

Type: Comparative analysis | Difficulty: Advanced | Time: 50 minutes

Couldry and Mejias argue in The Costs of Connection that "data colonialism" — framing data extraction as a new form of colonialism — captures the phenomenon better than Zuboff's surveillance capitalism.

Part A — Compare the frameworks. Create a structured comparison:

Part B — Critical evaluation. The data colonialism framework has been criticized for: - Potentially minimizing the actual horror of territorial colonialism through analogy - Implying that data extraction is as bad as slavery and colonial violence (an analogy some find offensive) - Being better at diagnosis than remedy — naming a problem without pointing toward solutions

Evaluate each critique. Does the colonial analogy illuminate or obscure the problem? When is historical analogy a useful analytical tool, and when does it distort?

Part C: Write a 300-word position on which framework — surveillance capitalism or data colonialism — provides more analytical leverage for understanding the problem and for generating remedies.

Exercise 34.3 — The Behavioral Surplus Audit

Type: Practical analysis | Difficulty: Beginner | Time: 30 minutes

Zuboff argues that surveillance capitalism extracts "behavioral surplus" — data beyond what's needed to provide the service — and uses it for behavioral prediction and modification.

Instructions: Choose one digital service you use daily (Google Search, Instagram, Netflix, Spotify, Amazon). For each of the following, identify: (a) What data is collected, (b) What is needed for the service, (c) What is "behavioral surplus" — collected but not needed for the stated service purpose.

Example template:

Service: [Name] Stated purpose: [What it's supposed to do for you] Data collected: [Everything it collects, as fully as you can determine from the privacy policy] Data needed for service: [What the service genuinely requires to function] Behavioral surplus: [What is collected beyond what's needed] How surplus is used: [To the extent you can determine]

After completing the audit, write a 250-word reflection: How much of the data this service collects is genuinely necessary? What does the ratio of necessary to surplus data tell you about whose interests the service primarily serves?

Exercise 34.4 — Techlash Evaluation

Type: Empirical and policy analysis | Difficulty: Intermediate | Time: 45 minutes

The "techlash" — public and regulatory skepticism about major technology companies — has produced discourse change, some regulatory action, and corporate commitments to privacy improvement. Has it changed surveillance capitalism?

Part A — Evidence collection. Research the following and note what happened: 1. Cambridge Analytica scandal (2018) and its regulatory consequences for Facebook/Meta 2. GDPR enforcement since 2018: what major actions occurred? 3. Apple's App Tracking Transparency (2021) and its effect on Meta's advertising revenue 4. Google's Privacy Sandbox/cookie deprecation: what was announced and what actually happened? 5. Congressional hearings with tech CEOs (2018-2023): what legislation followed?

Part B — Analysis. Based on your research, evaluate: Has the techlash produced structural change in surveillance capitalism? Or has it produced discourse change, regulatory pressure, and corporate adaptation without changing the fundamental business model?

Part C — Theory. Complete the following sentence and develop it into a 200-word argument: "The techlash demonstrates that __ is necessary for structural change but __ is insufficient without __."

Exercise 34.5 — Argument Mapping: Abolition vs. Reform

Type: Philosophical debate | Difficulty: Advanced | Time: 50 minutes

The surveillance studies community debates abolition (end surveillance capitalism) versus reform (make it less harmful). This exercise develops your ability to map and evaluate that debate.

Part A — Map the positions. Each position below is held by real scholars and advocates. State each position clearly in your own words, identify its underlying premises, and identify what it requires.

Position 1 (Zuboff-adjacent reformism): Strong data protection law — requiring opt-in consent for behavioral surplus collection, prohibiting behavioral futures markets as a category, establishing enforceable rights to explanation for algorithmic decisions — can fundamentally change surveillance capitalism without requiring abolition of digital platforms.

Position 2 (Data colonialism abolitionism): Because data colonialism is embedded in the fundamental logic of capital accumulation, reforms that regulate specific practices while accepting the underlying economic logic are insufficient. What is required is democratic public control of data infrastructure and the abolition of behavioral futures markets as a category of commerce.

Position 3 (Tech pragmatism): The relevant political question is not "abolition vs. reform" but "what governance structures can hold tech companies accountable?" Strong regulatory agencies with technical capacity, transparency requirements, algorithmic auditing, and meaningful enforcement can address the harms without requiring structural transformation of the economy.

Part B — Evaluate each position: 1. What is the strongest empirical support for this position? 2. What is the strongest empirical objection? 3. What does this position require politically? Is that politically achievable? 4. What harms does this position address? What harms does it leave unaddressed?

Part C: Write your own position in 250 words. Where do you come down, and why?

Exercise 34.6 — Policy Design: What Would You Regulate?

Type: Applied policy design | Difficulty: Intermediate | Time: 60 minutes (group recommended)

Scenario: A legislative committee has asked you to draft a five-provision regulatory framework to address the harms of surveillance capitalism. You have a budget of political capital: each provision will face industry opposition, and you can't win all of them. Prioritize five provisions that together would produce the most significant reduction in harm.

Available regulatory options (choose five, rank in priority order, and justify):

1. Require opt-in consent for behavioral surplus collection (not just for service provision)
2. Prohibit sale of behavioral prediction products to political campaigns and governments
3. Mandate algorithmic transparency — companies must explain automated decisions in human-understandable terms
4. Require data minimization — companies may only collect data necessary for the stated service
5. Break up Google (require divestiture of YouTube, Android, or other divisions)
6. Break up Meta (require divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp)
7. Establish individual property rights in personal data, with compensation requirements
8. Create a public search engine and social media alternative funded by the government
9. Prohibit behavioral advertising to children under 18
10. Require real-time disclosure of what data is collected during every session
11. Establish a right to explanation for all consequential automated decisions
12. Impose significant data breach liability (private right of action for behavioral data exposure)

Deliverable: A ranked list of your five provisions, with 150-word justifications for each. Then a 250-word memo explaining your overall strategy — what theory of change underlies your choices?

Debrief: Compare lists across groups. Where is there consensus? Where is there disagreement? What does the disagreement reveal about different analyses of what surveillance capitalism's core harm is?