What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism
OneZero, Medium's official technology publication, is thrilled to announce a print-on-demand edition of How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism by Cory Doctorow, with an exclusive new chapter. How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism was first published online in August, where it was an instant hit with readers, scholars, and critics alike. For years now, we've been hearing about the ills of surveillance capitalism - the business of extracting, collecting, and selling vast reams of user data that has exploded with the rise of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. But what if everything we've been hearing is wrong? What if surveillance capitalism is not some rogue capitalism or a wrong turn taken by some misguided corporations? What if the system is working exactly as intended - and the only hope of restoring an open web is to take the fight directly to the system itself? In Doctorow's timely and crucial new nonfiction work, the internationally bestselling author of Walkaway, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and Little Brother, argues that if we're to have any hope of destroying surveillance capitalism, we're going to have to destroy the monopolies that currently comprise the commercial web as we know it. Only by breaking apart the tech giants that totally control our online experiences can we hope to return to a more open and free web - one where predatory data-harvesting is not a founding principle. Doctorow shows how, despite popular misconception, Facebook and Google do not possess any mind-control rays capable of brainwashing users into, say, voting for a presidential candidate or joining an extremist group--they have simply used their monopoly power to profit mightily off of people interested in doing those things and made it easy for them to find each other.Doctorow takes us on a whirlwind tour of the last 30 years of digital rights battles and the history of American monopoly - and where the two intersect. Through a deeply compelling and highly readable narrative, he makes the case for breaking up Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple as a means of ending surveillance capitalism.
146 pages, Paperback
First published December 29, 2020
63 people are currently reading
962 people want to read
About the author
Cory Doctorow
268 books6,200 followersCory Doctorow is a science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger — the co-editor of Boing Boing and the author of the YA graphic novel In Real Life, the nonfiction business book Information Doesn’t Want To Be Free, and young adult novels like Homeland, Pirate Cinema, and
Little Brother
and novels for adults like
Rapture Of The Nerds
and Makers. He is a Fellow for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. Born in Toronto, Canada, he now lives in Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
September 1, 2020
Full book can be found here. Though it reads more like an extended critique of Shoshana Zuboff's The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, it is a welcome one. Having only struggled through a few chapters of Zuboff's book myself, I find Doctorow's writing on the topic of "surveillance capitalism" much more refreshing and relatable. Doctorow grounds Zuboff's seemingly alarmist claims of disappearing free will on the Internet, though to some extent, it is true (in terms of privacy, at least). Perhaps worth a re-read if I ever finish Zuboff's book.
November 17, 2021
This extended essay is partly constructed as a critique of Shoshana Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. I have not read that book, but apparently it is is about how high tech is invading our privacy and both monetizing our personal data and making it available to the government, which can potentially use it for repression.
Doctorow, while not disagreeing on those points, disagrees about high-tech exceptionalism, the idea that information-industry companies (the most obvious being Facebook and Google) are unique because of the data they deal with. He gives a lot of information about how inefficient the use of social media surveillance is, especially for advertisers. He does not dispute the overall danger to all of us, but he puts it in a broader perspective, and identifies the real problem as unchecked capitalism:
The book is readable, and not too long, though it could have been shorter. There's a fair amount of repetition. He illustrates his points with multiple examples, some about high tech and surveillance and some about other types of businesses, and I found that helpful. I tend to read too fast, and the repetition drove the points home. Plus, I generally always agree with Doctorow, and it's a pleasure to get a good look at his thinking about this important issue.
Doctorow, while not disagreeing on those points, disagrees about high-tech exceptionalism, the idea that information-industry companies (the most obvious being Facebook and Google) are unique because of the data they deal with. He gives a lot of information about how inefficient the use of social media surveillance is, especially for advertisers. He does not dispute the overall danger to all of us, but he puts it in a broader perspective, and identifies the real problem as unchecked capitalism:
The surveillance capitalism hypothesis — that Big Tech’s products really work as well as they say they do and that’s why everything is so screwed up — is way too easy on surveillance and even easier on capitalism. Companies spy because they believe their own BS, and companies spy because governments let them, and companies spy because any advantage from spying is so short-lived and minor that they have to do more and more of it just to stay in place.His solution is basic trustbusting. I don't pay enough attention to government stuff, but I've wondered how these big companies keep merging and buying up their smaller possible competitors. I did not fully realize that starting with the Reagan administration, the antitrust laws have been gutted - like much of the rest of government regulations. Doctorow hopes that various groups will come together and demand that antitrust measures are reinstated. I hope so too, but don't see much happening in that direction now. It would be great if this book could crystallize that activism.
As to why things are so screwed up? Capitalism. Specifically, the monopolism that creates inequality and the inequality that creates monopolism. It’s a form of capitalism that rewards sociopaths who destroy the real economy to inflate the bottom line, and they get away with it for the same reason companies get away with spying: because our governments are in thrall to both the ideology that says monopolies are actually just fine and in thrall to the ideology that says that in a monopolistic world, you’d better not piss off the monopolists.
The book is readable, and not too long, though it could have been shorter. There's a fair amount of repetition. He illustrates his points with multiple examples, some about high tech and surveillance and some about other types of businesses, and I found that helpful. I tend to read too fast, and the repetition drove the points home. Plus, I generally always agree with Doctorow, and it's a pleasure to get a good look at his thinking about this important issue.
May 5, 2021
Let me say it short: This book could have been an article. Or even better: just a structured Facebook post.
I know that this review may bring on a lot of Doctorow fans to the comment section. But wasn't goodreads created for being honest about your own impressions? Because, boy, have I been triggered by this "book".
First of all, it's hardly a book. It's a 100-hundred rambling session that looks more like a collection of short blog posts and rewritten podcasts. It's all over the place. There's no structure whatsoever, there's no logic in it. Some themes are just lightly touched, others are pressed on over and over and over again.
Secondly, it seems that this piece should've been called "Why I'm mad that I haven't written a book about Surveillance Capitalism before Shoshana Zuboff". My God, is it bitter. Seems like most of this book consists of the author poking at her all the time and mocking some of the terms she used. "Rogue capitalism" this, "rogue capitalism" that, "as Shoshana Zuboff stated...". What disappointed me even more is that most of the author's remarks about Zuboff's research are totally misinterpreting her work. It's like Cory Doctorow was hoping that most of his readers were too lazy to get to the end of her book before reading his valuable opinion. Many of the things he says like that Zuboff is a tech exceptionalist or that she doesn't offer a solution to the problem (yet he finishes his book with offering to solve this problem from a legitimate point of view — the same thing Zuboff was talking over and over about while also having the better grasp at the laws in this area) or that she says that we are all going to be manipulated into oblivion — are totally exaggerated and untrue. Also funny that by twisting her words he often comes to saying practically the same thing as her just with less fact-checking. All in all, this part really reminded me of a bad parody on "Men Explain Things to Me". Zuboff is a researcher who put decades of work into it, Doctorow, nonetheless, never seemed more like a blogger than a writer/journalist in this book.
Thirdly, being a journalist myself, man, was I disillusioned by the quality of journalism in it. I know it wasn't supposed to be a journalistic piece, but neither did it aim for the level of non-fiction lit. It's full of water, the writer using beat-up metaphors over and over again, while thinking that he gives great examples without any fact-checking behind them (sorry, but a link to 3 researches and a few Wired articles is not enough for such a vast piece). He loses his bearings all the time, giving different information on the same fact in different chapters (so what's the %-age of all search results is made by Google, sorry, is it 80 or 90 or smth else?). I just wish there was an editor working on this book with him because I felt like I was check my little brother's research paper while reading it.
Moreover, while taking the high ground Mr.Doctorow keeps returning to the same thing in loops. Monopolism and copyright laws. Ok, we got it, "monopolism" is his new favorite word, but didn't the author say himself 10 years ago that it's "Time to Stop Talking About Copyright?". Many of his remarks about it seem outdated and just put there in order to promote his other works on the copyright topic. It's like in a really old Russian anecdote where Vovochka learned the paragraph only about lice before his exam and kept changing the topic to it all the time while answering to his teacher asking about dogs and cats.
And last but not least, Cory Doctorow is dismissive. And pretty often he notices it as well. He keeps talking about how people exaggerate the influence of surveillance capitalism on their everyday life and emotional state. Yet, he completely overlooks the social and psychological statistics on this matter even though it's everywhere. Nobody states that surveillance capitalism will make us the spineless indifferent people staring only into their screens like in WALL'E. But undervaluing smth that a lot of users are struggling with and smth that many scientists have been researching for years is just of poor character. So the author is stuck in the loop of writing "it's not that serious, they're all such alarmists" — "but it's also not NOT serious, because it is" — "but not too much, because... monopolism!"
Don't get me wrong, Doctorow DOES have good ideas and smth new to bring to the table. But considering all the editing work needed and his mind travelling back and forth, all of those ideas could be efficiently put in 2 pages.
All in all, this book felt like smth created for the sake of making the Quora and Reddit comment sections longer. To me it felt like a chore (and it was, as I was asked to search for some experts on the Surveillance Capitalism topic) and I was putting away this "only-2-hour-read" book all the time.
I used to like Cory Doctorow a lot, heck, I was quoting him obsessively in 2011 during journalistic summits in Moscow on Internet copyright laws. But boy, do I get triggered so much when I see a work done badly. And this is one of those without a doubt.
I know that this review may bring on a lot of Doctorow fans to the comment section. But wasn't goodreads created for being honest about your own impressions? Because, boy, have I been triggered by this "book".
First of all, it's hardly a book. It's a 100-hundred rambling session that looks more like a collection of short blog posts and rewritten podcasts. It's all over the place. There's no structure whatsoever, there's no logic in it. Some themes are just lightly touched, others are pressed on over and over and over again.
Secondly, it seems that this piece should've been called "Why I'm mad that I haven't written a book about Surveillance Capitalism before Shoshana Zuboff". My God, is it bitter. Seems like most of this book consists of the author poking at her all the time and mocking some of the terms she used. "Rogue capitalism" this, "rogue capitalism" that, "as Shoshana Zuboff stated...". What disappointed me even more is that most of the author's remarks about Zuboff's research are totally misinterpreting her work. It's like Cory Doctorow was hoping that most of his readers were too lazy to get to the end of her book before reading his valuable opinion. Many of the things he says like that Zuboff is a tech exceptionalist or that she doesn't offer a solution to the problem (yet he finishes his book with offering to solve this problem from a legitimate point of view — the same thing Zuboff was talking over and over about while also having the better grasp at the laws in this area) or that she says that we are all going to be manipulated into oblivion — are totally exaggerated and untrue. Also funny that by twisting her words he often comes to saying practically the same thing as her just with less fact-checking. All in all, this part really reminded me of a bad parody on "Men Explain Things to Me". Zuboff is a researcher who put decades of work into it, Doctorow, nonetheless, never seemed more like a blogger than a writer/journalist in this book.
Thirdly, being a journalist myself, man, was I disillusioned by the quality of journalism in it. I know it wasn't supposed to be a journalistic piece, but neither did it aim for the level of non-fiction lit. It's full of water, the writer using beat-up metaphors over and over again, while thinking that he gives great examples without any fact-checking behind them (sorry, but a link to 3 researches and a few Wired articles is not enough for such a vast piece). He loses his bearings all the time, giving different information on the same fact in different chapters (so what's the %-age of all search results is made by Google, sorry, is it 80 or 90 or smth else?). I just wish there was an editor working on this book with him because I felt like I was check my little brother's research paper while reading it.
Moreover, while taking the high ground Mr.Doctorow keeps returning to the same thing in loops. Monopolism and copyright laws. Ok, we got it, "monopolism" is his new favorite word, but didn't the author say himself 10 years ago that it's "Time to Stop Talking About Copyright?". Many of his remarks about it seem outdated and just put there in order to promote his other works on the copyright topic. It's like in a really old Russian anecdote where Vovochka learned the paragraph only about lice before his exam and kept changing the topic to it all the time while answering to his teacher asking about dogs and cats.
And last but not least, Cory Doctorow is dismissive. And pretty often he notices it as well. He keeps talking about how people exaggerate the influence of surveillance capitalism on their everyday life and emotional state. Yet, he completely overlooks the social and psychological statistics on this matter even though it's everywhere. Nobody states that surveillance capitalism will make us the spineless indifferent people staring only into their screens like in WALL'E. But undervaluing smth that a lot of users are struggling with and smth that many scientists have been researching for years is just of poor character. So the author is stuck in the loop of writing "it's not that serious, they're all such alarmists" — "but it's also not NOT serious, because it is" — "but not too much, because... monopolism!"
Don't get me wrong, Doctorow DOES have good ideas and smth new to bring to the table. But considering all the editing work needed and his mind travelling back and forth, all of those ideas could be efficiently put in 2 pages.
All in all, this book felt like smth created for the sake of making the Quora and Reddit comment sections longer. To me it felt like a chore (and it was, as I was asked to search for some experts on the Surveillance Capitalism topic) and I was putting away this "only-2-hour-read" book all the time.
I used to like Cory Doctorow a lot, heck, I was quoting him obsessively in 2011 during journalistic summits in Moscow on Internet copyright laws. But boy, do I get triggered so much when I see a work done badly. And this is one of those without a doubt.
March 7, 2022
Cory Doctorow is incredibly well-versed when it comes to technology, privacy, policy, and their intersection, and here he offers an addendum/rebuttal to Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Zuboff defines this new mode of industry as "unexpected and often illegible mechanisms of extraction, commodification, and control that effectively exile persons from their own behavior while producing new markets of behavioral prediction and modification." Doctorow agrees that capitalism and technology pose unique threats to civilization, but disagrees on the nature of the threat technology poses. He characterizes these overblown conceptions of technology's ability to manipulate our decision-making as "mind-control rays": not real, and better explained as prosaic effects of leveraged data-gathering. Companies like Google*, Facebook (this was before the "Meta" name swap), Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and the rest only want you to believe the hype that they are capable of such quasi-supernatural psychological manipulation. The real threat is monopolistic behavior, and that's what needs to be carefully regulated against.
Doctorow punctures the myths and then explains the methods that budding tech giants employ to prevent honest competition when the guard rails are down. He provides the history of how we got to where we are, and examples of policies that have worked and policies that have failed us. Coupled with the danger of monopolism is the epistemological crisis of fake news and the societal devaluation of truth and evidence. Doctorow has fascinating context and insight about all of the above, and I always learn new things from him. How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism is a quick read, and sure to influence your thinking as a consumer and as an advocate for breaking up the tech giants. As a bonus, I got to interview Doctorow about this book and a wide range of related topics (primarily, fiber internet and 5G technology) for my podcast.
*Hilarious and cutting summary of Google: "...a company that has developed two major products: a rally good search engine and a pretty good Hotmail clone."
Doctorow punctures the myths and then explains the methods that budding tech giants employ to prevent honest competition when the guard rails are down. He provides the history of how we got to where we are, and examples of policies that have worked and policies that have failed us. Coupled with the danger of monopolism is the epistemological crisis of fake news and the societal devaluation of truth and evidence. Doctorow has fascinating context and insight about all of the above, and I always learn new things from him. How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism is a quick read, and sure to influence your thinking as a consumer and as an advocate for breaking up the tech giants. As a bonus, I got to interview Doctorow about this book and a wide range of related topics (primarily, fiber internet and 5G technology) for my podcast.
*Hilarious and cutting summary of Google: "...a company that has developed two major products: a rally good search engine and a pretty good Hotmail clone."
April 17, 2023
As a response to The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, this 138 pages long glorified article manages to be both rambling and repetitive, with liberal sprinkling of the author's progressive credentials for no obvious reason other than virtue points. There is hardly any point to all this, and he manages to be vapid and annoying to boot. The criticism of TAoSC is either intentionally disingenuous, or Mr Doctorow did not fully read the book he's responding to. The solutions he offers don't seem like they'll be solving anything either.
Zuboff's book was a pain to get through, but whether you agreed with her or not, at least it was substantial and well researched.
Zuboff's book was a pain to get through, but whether you agreed with her or not, at least it was substantial and well researched.
November 11, 2020
Another call to arms by Cory Doctorow, in which he tells us how to destroy surveillance capitalism.
In the Monty Python TV series, there was a sketch in which they made fun of a children's show. One of the hosts of the children's show said that they were going to tell the kids how to cure all known diseases. The answer was, become a doctor and cure all known diseases.
That's essentially what this book is like. How do you destroy surveillance capitalism? You gather together to elect politicians who will destroy surveillance capitalism.
Oh, okay.
In the Monty Python TV series, there was a sketch in which they made fun of a children's show. One of the hosts of the children's show said that they were going to tell the kids how to cure all known diseases. The answer was, become a doctor and cure all known diseases.
That's essentially what this book is like. How do you destroy surveillance capitalism? You gather together to elect politicians who will destroy surveillance capitalism.
Oh, okay.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 26, 2021
The title of this book says it all. It is Cory Doctorow's thesis on what to do about the ever-present surveillance from countries, companies, websites, mobile apps, fridges and everything else that's connected to the internet.
If you've been following Cory's writing, you won't find a lot of surprises here.
The main idea behind this book is: surveillance capitalism is the product of monopolies and the power that the current tech giants hold is the result of them being allowed to grow by buying out competitors and dominating the markets through monopoly tactics.
Tactics that used to be illegal, but have become possible through deregulation and defanging of the agencies that were responsible for blocking or unwinding merges.
Doctorow argues that rather than tech being a think unlike anything that ever came before, a more parsimonious explanation exists: monopolies are problematic because they concentrate power. And the monopolies then use this power to grow even more powerful -- to the detriment of all of us.
That there isn't anything particularly new here and that monopolies are just unchecked capitalism in action. Why wouldn't a company do everything in its power to assert market dominance through any means necessary when the share holders benefit and the breaks are not engaging, this a perfectly natural outcome.
One that has happened throughout history which is why the anti-monopoly regulations were put in in the first place. Not just because monopolies can raise consumer prices.
It is a good book and an argument I am absolutely sympathetic to. There may be more at play here, but the main logic: "when you allow monopolies, you get monopolies who then behave with unchecked power" and that this might be the first thing we should focus on solving; that makes perfect sense to me.
The book is positioned as being against the thesis of Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Having not read it, I don't know whether its ideas are presented and argued against fairly here.
But the anti-monopoly Occam's razor is strong even if it's not the whole story. It is well presented and well argued and I've enjoyed reading the book.
If you've been following Cory's writing, you won't find a lot of surprises here.
The main idea behind this book is: surveillance capitalism is the product of monopolies and the power that the current tech giants hold is the result of them being allowed to grow by buying out competitors and dominating the markets through monopoly tactics.
Tactics that used to be illegal, but have become possible through deregulation and defanging of the agencies that were responsible for blocking or unwinding merges.
Doctorow argues that rather than tech being a think unlike anything that ever came before, a more parsimonious explanation exists: monopolies are problematic because they concentrate power. And the monopolies then use this power to grow even more powerful -- to the detriment of all of us.
That there isn't anything particularly new here and that monopolies are just unchecked capitalism in action. Why wouldn't a company do everything in its power to assert market dominance through any means necessary when the share holders benefit and the breaks are not engaging, this a perfectly natural outcome.
One that has happened throughout history which is why the anti-monopoly regulations were put in in the first place. Not just because monopolies can raise consumer prices.
It is a good book and an argument I am absolutely sympathetic to. There may be more at play here, but the main logic: "when you allow monopolies, you get monopolies who then behave with unchecked power" and that this might be the first thing we should focus on solving; that makes perfect sense to me.
The book is positioned as being against the thesis of Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Having not read it, I don't know whether its ideas are presented and argued against fairly here.
But the anti-monopoly Occam's razor is strong even if it's not the whole story. It is well presented and well argued and I've enjoyed reading the book.
May 12, 2021
Informative and relevant. Recommended.
September 23, 2021
Reading this book reminded me of another book: Mindf*ck (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...), this book is written in a objective way, less personal than the aforementioned book. Both detest the power held by the Big Tech to influence the masses.
Surveillance Capitalism are two very big words to begin with but it essentially boils down to the problem that rich people have some level of control over people from the other social stata. Why is that so? Tech conglomerates have oversized influence over people's thoughts and behaviour. This is very dangerous as we are allowing organisations which are profits focused, dictate epistemological correctness. Fake news have been rampant over the past several years and they were exemplified by the happenstance of COVID-19 - malicious actors spreading misinformation about vaccines thus leading to mistrust of its use. With the use of natural language processing technology, companies are now able to process the sentiments of text very well and profile a users' interests easily. Knowing a user's likes and behaviour greatly increase the online ads sold to the buyers. The wealthy is now able to exert its influence on a wide range of people and very explicitly target a specific group of people through the use of Facebook. Who is going to police every authorization of the sales of ads to the buyer? Can we be sure that all Facebook ads sold would not lead to a series of ethical issues?
Make no mistake, Facebook is very good at making money and I reckon they are going to be very profitable in the coming years. Everyone I know is a Facebook user. The problem here is that Big Tech don't necessarily kowtow to the laws, they listen to the bidding of the rich. On a tangential point, the lawmakers are amateurs in how the surveillance conducted by the Big Tech work. Many of them barely have any working knowledge of tech, let alone the ability to govern these big tech companies. Antitrust laws were meant to break up Big Tech to encourage greater competition in the industry but history proved that they were largely ineffective. Facebook was fined $5 billion dollars for violation of consumers' privacy yet they grew bigger after the incident. The company is so rich that they can just acquire any other smaller company to cut off any possibilities of disrupting the monopoly.
The author also discussed ways to destroy surveillance capitalism but in my opinion, we really do need a miracle to stop these companies from becoming bigger. He envisioned a reality where the big companies are broken down into smaller firms but I really don't see this happening anytime soon. The book acknowledged the difficulty to withdraw from all these social media platforms because all your friends are there; the network effect is strong. Why would you give up a service that is already so good and spend extra effort getting your friends over?
It's impossible to review the whole book in entirety because there were so many points raised against the topic of Surveillance Capitalism. Some of the ideas were not fresh yet I enjoyed reading this book a lot. It was definitely a thought-provoking book to read!
Surveillance Capitalism are two very big words to begin with but it essentially boils down to the problem that rich people have some level of control over people from the other social stata. Why is that so? Tech conglomerates have oversized influence over people's thoughts and behaviour. This is very dangerous as we are allowing organisations which are profits focused, dictate epistemological correctness. Fake news have been rampant over the past several years and they were exemplified by the happenstance of COVID-19 - malicious actors spreading misinformation about vaccines thus leading to mistrust of its use. With the use of natural language processing technology, companies are now able to process the sentiments of text very well and profile a users' interests easily. Knowing a user's likes and behaviour greatly increase the online ads sold to the buyers. The wealthy is now able to exert its influence on a wide range of people and very explicitly target a specific group of people through the use of Facebook. Who is going to police every authorization of the sales of ads to the buyer? Can we be sure that all Facebook ads sold would not lead to a series of ethical issues?
Make no mistake, Facebook is very good at making money and I reckon they are going to be very profitable in the coming years. Everyone I know is a Facebook user. The problem here is that Big Tech don't necessarily kowtow to the laws, they listen to the bidding of the rich. On a tangential point, the lawmakers are amateurs in how the surveillance conducted by the Big Tech work. Many of them barely have any working knowledge of tech, let alone the ability to govern these big tech companies. Antitrust laws were meant to break up Big Tech to encourage greater competition in the industry but history proved that they were largely ineffective. Facebook was fined $5 billion dollars for violation of consumers' privacy yet they grew bigger after the incident. The company is so rich that they can just acquire any other smaller company to cut off any possibilities of disrupting the monopoly.
The author also discussed ways to destroy surveillance capitalism but in my opinion, we really do need a miracle to stop these companies from becoming bigger. He envisioned a reality where the big companies are broken down into smaller firms but I really don't see this happening anytime soon. The book acknowledged the difficulty to withdraw from all these social media platforms because all your friends are there; the network effect is strong. Why would you give up a service that is already so good and spend extra effort getting your friends over?
It's impossible to review the whole book in entirety because there were so many points raised against the topic of Surveillance Capitalism. Some of the ideas were not fresh yet I enjoyed reading this book a lot. It was definitely a thought-provoking book to read!
July 15, 2023
Please read it:
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-des...
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-des...
December 13, 2022
Doctorow recaps the last 30 years of digital rights battles and the history of American monopoly in order to make the case for breaking up BigTechs as a means of ending surveillance capitalism. The author argues that by breaking apart the digital monopolies is a way to return to a more open and free web, in which data-harvesting is not a founding principle.
May 28, 2021
Which is worse: surveillance or monopoly? And can one be used to destroy the other? That’s the question Cory Doctorow very eloquently poses in “How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism”.
Big Tech’s unrestrained harvesting of your and my personal data is not our biggest problem. The monopolies of Big Tech are. It is monopolies which really deprive us of our freedom and threaten our lives. So goes the message from Cory Doctorow in his new mini-book “How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism”. He is on to something, albeit his conclusions are stretched a bit too far. Or not enough.
Instagram makes you depressed. Having cell phones in the bedroom get you divorced. Facebook is ravaged by Russian trolls, and YouTube’s rabbit holes pulls you into endless video streams of radicalized content. You’re trapped in the big tech giants ad-funded influence machine: they know everything about you, use it against you, and won’t let you go.
Two years ago, ranting like this would sound wild; today it is mainstream. Thanks not least to Harvard-professor Shoshana Zuboff, who in 2019 made headlines across the world with her opus on the “age of surveillance capitalism”, laying bare how the tech giants systematically harvest user data, aiming to guaranteed the outcome for advertisers and others who pay for it: that their messages will be not only seen but also acted upon.
However, not everyone buys into the surveillance capitalist narrative. Most recently, the Canadian / British author, blogger and internet activist etc. Cory Doctorow, who in his new some 80-page long essayistic book release, “How to destroy surveillance capitalism,” (read it for free right here), objects to some of the central tenants of Zuboffs work. Here’s where he’s right and where he’s wrong:
1. You are too much, Zuboff
Doctorow’s first blow is set against one of Zuboff’s notoriously sore points: her outspoken, but also somewhat high-pitched, rhetoric.
In Zuboff’s world, there are virtually no limits to how much havoc the technology giants can wreak. They are guilty of a lot more, than not misleading marketing and pulling unethical sales tricks. No, they, and their surveillance capitalism found a system that does not stop until it has gained full control over our lives, and where we are all reduced to willless individuals in a neo-totalitarian world order. She talks about “guaranteed outcome”, “Big Other” and about how we are all deprived of our “right to the future tense”.
Zuboff has been dazzled by the advertising industry and the technology giants’ own sales speeches. In reality their systems don’t work anywhere as well.
Doctorow objects. Yes, we are being monitored, and yes, we are being manipulated. But not to the extreme extent Zuboff wants us to believe. To him, Zuboff has been dazzled by the advertising industry and the technology giants’ own sales speeches. In reality their systems don’t work anywhere as well. Maybe one in 100 can be influenced to actually change his or her mind and act on it. A far cry from ‘mind-control’ or ‘brainwashing’.
In Doctorow’s view, it is not the automated behavioral modification of surveillance capitalism that is the biggest problem. Their monopolies are, he says. And offers three reasons for this being so.
2. Monopolies deprive you of your choices
As we all know, when you search on Amazon, you off course only see products from Amazon partner companies. Only products that fulfill Amazon’s content requirements and only from companies that both pay and generally behave the way Amazon wants it to.
When Apple sells iPhones to China, it does so without the possibility for Chinese customers to choose VPNs or encryption standards themselves. And when Facebook and Twitter find themselves with few real competitors, it’s because the two lock users inside their walled gardens, fiercely preventing new social networks from gaining ground.
All of this is caused by Big Tech’s monopoly-like nature. The ability of monopolies to deprive users of meaningful choices is the greatest threat to our freedom, Doctorow argues. Not the ability of technology giants to manipulate users to click, buy or vote in any particular way.
Doctorow’s points are compelling. Though I wonder if the monopolies’ deprivation of freedom of choice, and the manipulation of the surveillance capitalists, are in fact not quite as separated, as Doctorow would let us to believe.
3. Monopolies halt development and threaten civilization as we know it
The harmful effect of monopolies does not stop here. In addition to depriving us of significant choices, monopolies also halt technological development: alternatives from the outside are suppressed while the monopolies consistently develop themselves so as to make the largest profits, whether it makes users happy or not.
That’s why, says Doctorow, the way you read news on Facebook has largely not evolved since the mid-2000s, while the self segmenting Facebook Groups and advertising tools are so smooth and next-gen. Again good points.
However, the potentially most draconian consequences of monopolistic software development come from elsewhere: the build-up of “technological debt”, old code all to easily accumulated by IT systems as time goes by, putting virtual millstones around their necks and often poses significant security risks. This, Doctorow argues, is created by the same legislative mechanisms on which monopolies also rest: the legal regime, which, with the protection of copyright law and intellectual property, shuts down the free access to view, modify and improve computer programs, and which was created in the United States in the 1980s along with a number of other weakenings of anti-trust provisions.
Technological debt, more than mind control, he proclaims, poses the existential threat to our civilization and to our species.
Doctorow dreads what’ll happen when the day the technological debt is cashed in. And for this, not only Big Tech’s monopolies are in the firing line. Technological breakdowns can occur in every corner of our societies, from global shipping over food supply to pharmaceutical production. Technological debt, more than mind control, he proclaims, poses the existential threat to our civilization and to our species.
The Intellectual Property regime and its ills have always been one of Doctorow’s greatest fads. Here, however, he fails to really make his case, tying technology debt to his doom and gloom scenario.
4. Monopolies create an epistemological crisis, fake news and conspiracies
The weakening of anti-trust legislation in the US in the 1980s plays a significant part for Doctorow. The laxing of legal controls led to increased concentration in all industries, he posits, from banks, to oil, newspapers and theme parks. It led – along with the neoliberal wave of which it was a part – to increased inequality. And it created social and monetary ties and unholy alliances between legislators and capital that distorted society’s evidence-based, truth-seeking institutions and thus created – Doctorow goes on – a fundamental uncertainty about what is right and wrong and who to believe. An epistemological crisis, particularly affecting vulnerable groups.
This crisis is the material background for fake news and the success of conspiracy theorists. The monopolization, inequality and lobbying have created a world in which the manipulations of surveillance capitalism can frolic.
Doctorows musings in this way constitute a standard neo-liberalism-critique, only slightly twisted. But while neo-liberalism certainly can be attributed with at least a part of the blame, Doctorow doesn’t manage to fully convince me about the extent to which this is true.
5. Fight monopolies with competition policy
For all these reasons, monopolies must be fought, says Doctorow, to truly combat surveillance capitalism. This is the crux of the book’s title: To destroy Surveillance Capitalism, you must destroy monopolies as well.
This can be done in several ways. One is to regulate monopolies much stricter than today. Ie.: don’t allow large firms to merge, don’t allow large firms to acquire small would-be competitors and put an end to platform firms competing directly against the firms that depend on their platforms.
Doctorow wants the classic anti-trust competition policy reintroduced in the US. That sounds like a good idea.
6. Open up
Doctorow, as mentioned, is not too happy with strictly enforced copyrights as these all too easily lead to the build-up of technological debt. But this is not the only problem resulting from the lack of openness. Closure is also detrimental when competitors refuse to let their products and services work together.
It’s a good thing that anyone can make a light bulb that fits to your light socket, and it’s bad when your printer doesn’t accept “foreign” ink. A good thing, that you can choose who you want to call, no matter their operator, and it’s bad, when Facebook locks you into using Messenger to talk to your friends.
Closeness – or lack of interoperability – is one of the tricks monopolists use to keep others out and down. That needs to be done with as well.
7. Share data
For some reason Doctorow never really gets specific on what exactly is needed to create interoperability. However one initiative with direct ability to stop, or at least slow down the surveillance capitalist data-cirkus, calls for attention: figuring out how to organize and safeguard the ownership of personal data.
If I own the information about who my friends on Facebook are, I could allow the apps of my choosing to use my Facebook friends list as their phonebook as well. This would make it much easier for me to use Apple’s iMessage or Signal or what have you, dismantling the artificial barriers erected around Facebooks walled garden, and voila, the monopoly would be much more easily broken.
The same is true in a variety of other contexts: If I own the data about what topics I’m searching for, what music I listen to, what movies I watch, what news I read, what shirts and socks I buy and what pizzas I eat, if I own all this data, I can also pass it on to the music, film and news services etc, which I like the best, and they could use all this nice data to give me even better music and movie and pizza recommendations, and thus allowing them to engage in data driven product development without having to try to capture me and milk me for data first.
For some reason Doctorow never really gets specific on what exactly is needed to create interoperability
Such data openness would obviously be good for the technology giants’ competitors and bad for the technology giants themselves, because the data openness would deprive the technology giants of the aces with which they trump every game: the gigantic data file which no one but themselves have at their disposal today, which is key to their earnings, and which new competitors will never, or only with extreme difficulty, be able to build themselves.
It is exactly this openness that Doctorow calls for. But he does not link it to the question of who owns what data. On the contrary, he denies that data can be owned at all.
8. Can facts be owned? Can data?
“Ownership of facts is antithetical to human progress,” says Doctorow. That sounds captivatingly rational. I myself subscribe to the truth as a principle. It’s hard to solve anything if the knowledge of what the problem is about, or what it takes to make a solution that actually works, is locked up by someone somewhere.
In addition, Doctorow points out, there is also something linguistically strange about the problem. How can one own facts at all? Do I own the information that I am my mother’s son? Or is it my mother who owns that knowledge? Is it both of us? And what about my father?
Both of these objections rings somewhat hollow. You can be rational and make progress without knowing all the facts. Just as long the facts you do have are essential and true.
And of course, information can be about, and in that sense also “owned”, by several different people at the same time. But that does not prevent me from wanting to decide for myself if Facebook, for example, should know who my parents are and which purposes Facebook should be able to use that knowledge for. Just like both my dad and mom should be able to decide if they want their identities linked to this data point or not.
9. The chicken and the egg
The main thesis of “How to destroy surveillance capitalism” is that it is the monopolization itself, not the rapidly developing Surveillance Capitalists, that is the real villain. That surveillance capitalism is just the latest example of the misfortunes propelled by monopolies.
Monopolies create problems no matter the industry, Doctorow believes. “Tech exceptionalism”, as he refers to, is not his cup of tea. Tech is neither born super-good nor super-evil. And that’s the part of Zuboff and her critical capitalism critique that he has the hardest time with. She overestimates what technology can do.
But Zuboff may well be right, even if her future scenarios might be a little over the top. Surveillance capitalism may well produce a world ruled by data harvesting and manipulation, even if it does not mean that we are all totally brainwashed. “Minor offenses” to our mental well-being and corruption of political processes can easily do.
Add to this, surveillance capitalism is in itself a winner-take-all game. The one with the most data to feed into his or her algorithms creates the best data-driven services – both for users and advertisers. Therefore, the big ones get bigger; the dominant will dominate even more. In this way, tech is actually exceptional: it’s a monopoly machine. Lax laws might create monopolies no matter the industry – also in tech. But tech also creates monopolies in and by itself.
The real question, therefore, is not which of the two – surveillance capitalism or monopoly – is the worst. Who is hen and who is egg. The question is how best to combat them. Both. Together.
This blogpost was first written for and published by Kommunikationsforum, where it is published in Danish right here: https://www.kommunikationsforum.dk/ar...
Big Tech’s unrestrained harvesting of your and my personal data is not our biggest problem. The monopolies of Big Tech are. It is monopolies which really deprive us of our freedom and threaten our lives. So goes the message from Cory Doctorow in his new mini-book “How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism”. He is on to something, albeit his conclusions are stretched a bit too far. Or not enough.
Instagram makes you depressed. Having cell phones in the bedroom get you divorced. Facebook is ravaged by Russian trolls, and YouTube’s rabbit holes pulls you into endless video streams of radicalized content. You’re trapped in the big tech giants ad-funded influence machine: they know everything about you, use it against you, and won’t let you go.
Two years ago, ranting like this would sound wild; today it is mainstream. Thanks not least to Harvard-professor Shoshana Zuboff, who in 2019 made headlines across the world with her opus on the “age of surveillance capitalism”, laying bare how the tech giants systematically harvest user data, aiming to guaranteed the outcome for advertisers and others who pay for it: that their messages will be not only seen but also acted upon.
However, not everyone buys into the surveillance capitalist narrative. Most recently, the Canadian / British author, blogger and internet activist etc. Cory Doctorow, who in his new some 80-page long essayistic book release, “How to destroy surveillance capitalism,” (read it for free right here), objects to some of the central tenants of Zuboffs work. Here’s where he’s right and where he’s wrong:
1. You are too much, Zuboff
Doctorow’s first blow is set against one of Zuboff’s notoriously sore points: her outspoken, but also somewhat high-pitched, rhetoric.
In Zuboff’s world, there are virtually no limits to how much havoc the technology giants can wreak. They are guilty of a lot more, than not misleading marketing and pulling unethical sales tricks. No, they, and their surveillance capitalism found a system that does not stop until it has gained full control over our lives, and where we are all reduced to willless individuals in a neo-totalitarian world order. She talks about “guaranteed outcome”, “Big Other” and about how we are all deprived of our “right to the future tense”.
Zuboff has been dazzled by the advertising industry and the technology giants’ own sales speeches. In reality their systems don’t work anywhere as well.
Doctorow objects. Yes, we are being monitored, and yes, we are being manipulated. But not to the extreme extent Zuboff wants us to believe. To him, Zuboff has been dazzled by the advertising industry and the technology giants’ own sales speeches. In reality their systems don’t work anywhere as well. Maybe one in 100 can be influenced to actually change his or her mind and act on it. A far cry from ‘mind-control’ or ‘brainwashing’.
In Doctorow’s view, it is not the automated behavioral modification of surveillance capitalism that is the biggest problem. Their monopolies are, he says. And offers three reasons for this being so.
2. Monopolies deprive you of your choices
As we all know, when you search on Amazon, you off course only see products from Amazon partner companies. Only products that fulfill Amazon’s content requirements and only from companies that both pay and generally behave the way Amazon wants it to.
When Apple sells iPhones to China, it does so without the possibility for Chinese customers to choose VPNs or encryption standards themselves. And when Facebook and Twitter find themselves with few real competitors, it’s because the two lock users inside their walled gardens, fiercely preventing new social networks from gaining ground.
All of this is caused by Big Tech’s monopoly-like nature. The ability of monopolies to deprive users of meaningful choices is the greatest threat to our freedom, Doctorow argues. Not the ability of technology giants to manipulate users to click, buy or vote in any particular way.
Doctorow’s points are compelling. Though I wonder if the monopolies’ deprivation of freedom of choice, and the manipulation of the surveillance capitalists, are in fact not quite as separated, as Doctorow would let us to believe.
3. Monopolies halt development and threaten civilization as we know it
The harmful effect of monopolies does not stop here. In addition to depriving us of significant choices, monopolies also halt technological development: alternatives from the outside are suppressed while the monopolies consistently develop themselves so as to make the largest profits, whether it makes users happy or not.
That’s why, says Doctorow, the way you read news on Facebook has largely not evolved since the mid-2000s, while the self segmenting Facebook Groups and advertising tools are so smooth and next-gen. Again good points.
However, the potentially most draconian consequences of monopolistic software development come from elsewhere: the build-up of “technological debt”, old code all to easily accumulated by IT systems as time goes by, putting virtual millstones around their necks and often poses significant security risks. This, Doctorow argues, is created by the same legislative mechanisms on which monopolies also rest: the legal regime, which, with the protection of copyright law and intellectual property, shuts down the free access to view, modify and improve computer programs, and which was created in the United States in the 1980s along with a number of other weakenings of anti-trust provisions.
Technological debt, more than mind control, he proclaims, poses the existential threat to our civilization and to our species.
Doctorow dreads what’ll happen when the day the technological debt is cashed in. And for this, not only Big Tech’s monopolies are in the firing line. Technological breakdowns can occur in every corner of our societies, from global shipping over food supply to pharmaceutical production. Technological debt, more than mind control, he proclaims, poses the existential threat to our civilization and to our species.
The Intellectual Property regime and its ills have always been one of Doctorow’s greatest fads. Here, however, he fails to really make his case, tying technology debt to his doom and gloom scenario.
4. Monopolies create an epistemological crisis, fake news and conspiracies
The weakening of anti-trust legislation in the US in the 1980s plays a significant part for Doctorow. The laxing of legal controls led to increased concentration in all industries, he posits, from banks, to oil, newspapers and theme parks. It led – along with the neoliberal wave of which it was a part – to increased inequality. And it created social and monetary ties and unholy alliances between legislators and capital that distorted society’s evidence-based, truth-seeking institutions and thus created – Doctorow goes on – a fundamental uncertainty about what is right and wrong and who to believe. An epistemological crisis, particularly affecting vulnerable groups.
This crisis is the material background for fake news and the success of conspiracy theorists. The monopolization, inequality and lobbying have created a world in which the manipulations of surveillance capitalism can frolic.
Doctorows musings in this way constitute a standard neo-liberalism-critique, only slightly twisted. But while neo-liberalism certainly can be attributed with at least a part of the blame, Doctorow doesn’t manage to fully convince me about the extent to which this is true.
5. Fight monopolies with competition policy
For all these reasons, monopolies must be fought, says Doctorow, to truly combat surveillance capitalism. This is the crux of the book’s title: To destroy Surveillance Capitalism, you must destroy monopolies as well.
This can be done in several ways. One is to regulate monopolies much stricter than today. Ie.: don’t allow large firms to merge, don’t allow large firms to acquire small would-be competitors and put an end to platform firms competing directly against the firms that depend on their platforms.
Doctorow wants the classic anti-trust competition policy reintroduced in the US. That sounds like a good idea.
6. Open up
Doctorow, as mentioned, is not too happy with strictly enforced copyrights as these all too easily lead to the build-up of technological debt. But this is not the only problem resulting from the lack of openness. Closure is also detrimental when competitors refuse to let their products and services work together.
It’s a good thing that anyone can make a light bulb that fits to your light socket, and it’s bad when your printer doesn’t accept “foreign” ink. A good thing, that you can choose who you want to call, no matter their operator, and it’s bad, when Facebook locks you into using Messenger to talk to your friends.
Closeness – or lack of interoperability – is one of the tricks monopolists use to keep others out and down. That needs to be done with as well.
7. Share data
For some reason Doctorow never really gets specific on what exactly is needed to create interoperability. However one initiative with direct ability to stop, or at least slow down the surveillance capitalist data-cirkus, calls for attention: figuring out how to organize and safeguard the ownership of personal data.
If I own the information about who my friends on Facebook are, I could allow the apps of my choosing to use my Facebook friends list as their phonebook as well. This would make it much easier for me to use Apple’s iMessage or Signal or what have you, dismantling the artificial barriers erected around Facebooks walled garden, and voila, the monopoly would be much more easily broken.
The same is true in a variety of other contexts: If I own the data about what topics I’m searching for, what music I listen to, what movies I watch, what news I read, what shirts and socks I buy and what pizzas I eat, if I own all this data, I can also pass it on to the music, film and news services etc, which I like the best, and they could use all this nice data to give me even better music and movie and pizza recommendations, and thus allowing them to engage in data driven product development without having to try to capture me and milk me for data first.
For some reason Doctorow never really gets specific on what exactly is needed to create interoperability
Such data openness would obviously be good for the technology giants’ competitors and bad for the technology giants themselves, because the data openness would deprive the technology giants of the aces with which they trump every game: the gigantic data file which no one but themselves have at their disposal today, which is key to their earnings, and which new competitors will never, or only with extreme difficulty, be able to build themselves.
It is exactly this openness that Doctorow calls for. But he does not link it to the question of who owns what data. On the contrary, he denies that data can be owned at all.
8. Can facts be owned? Can data?
“Ownership of facts is antithetical to human progress,” says Doctorow. That sounds captivatingly rational. I myself subscribe to the truth as a principle. It’s hard to solve anything if the knowledge of what the problem is about, or what it takes to make a solution that actually works, is locked up by someone somewhere.
In addition, Doctorow points out, there is also something linguistically strange about the problem. How can one own facts at all? Do I own the information that I am my mother’s son? Or is it my mother who owns that knowledge? Is it both of us? And what about my father?
Both of these objections rings somewhat hollow. You can be rational and make progress without knowing all the facts. Just as long the facts you do have are essential and true.
And of course, information can be about, and in that sense also “owned”, by several different people at the same time. But that does not prevent me from wanting to decide for myself if Facebook, for example, should know who my parents are and which purposes Facebook should be able to use that knowledge for. Just like both my dad and mom should be able to decide if they want their identities linked to this data point or not.
9. The chicken and the egg
The main thesis of “How to destroy surveillance capitalism” is that it is the monopolization itself, not the rapidly developing Surveillance Capitalists, that is the real villain. That surveillance capitalism is just the latest example of the misfortunes propelled by monopolies.
Monopolies create problems no matter the industry, Doctorow believes. “Tech exceptionalism”, as he refers to, is not his cup of tea. Tech is neither born super-good nor super-evil. And that’s the part of Zuboff and her critical capitalism critique that he has the hardest time with. She overestimates what technology can do.
But Zuboff may well be right, even if her future scenarios might be a little over the top. Surveillance capitalism may well produce a world ruled by data harvesting and manipulation, even if it does not mean that we are all totally brainwashed. “Minor offenses” to our mental well-being and corruption of political processes can easily do.
Add to this, surveillance capitalism is in itself a winner-take-all game. The one with the most data to feed into his or her algorithms creates the best data-driven services – both for users and advertisers. Therefore, the big ones get bigger; the dominant will dominate even more. In this way, tech is actually exceptional: it’s a monopoly machine. Lax laws might create monopolies no matter the industry – also in tech. But tech also creates monopolies in and by itself.
The real question, therefore, is not which of the two – surveillance capitalism or monopoly – is the worst. Who is hen and who is egg. The question is how best to combat them. Both. Together.
This blogpost was first written for and published by Kommunikationsforum, where it is published in Danish right here: https://www.kommunikationsforum.dk/ar...
May 19, 2021
Good read, although your mileage may vary depending on how fascinating you find monopoly/antitrust policy (for me the answer is very).
July 23, 2021
It's unfortunate that I went into this after seeing someone frame it as a criticism of Zuboff, because based on what I've ascertained from her book, admittedly without reading it, this is largely the same but worse.
The first thing to note is that it makes next to no use of any studies or reporting, discussion of specific events, etc, though when it does it's for things that really don't matter. Just a straightforward narrative about the problems with Big Tech, their causes, and how to fix them, but almost entirely without convincing evidence. It's this kind of quotidian narrative-building from the accumulated background knowledge of reading about this stuff, rather than a more conscious effort at studying the historical, economic, and more types of changes, contexts, etc, that make this analysis clearly casual and surface-level. Other things that are signs of that are the small factual or logical mistakes littered throughout, the bad takes (LGBT rights expanded thanks to the existence of a private realm for LGBT people to explore themselves? Really?), and the self-contradictions (one chapter oscillates at least four times between saying that tech lobbying is muscular and that it's ineffective).
Doctorow is emphatic about what the ultimate problem behind all this is: monopolism. There are other things attached to this, like regulatory capture, more general corruption, and whatnot, but monopoly capitalism is the ultimate cause in Doctorow's eyes. This makes the analysis not that different from Zuboff's because it is not capitalism that is the problem, according to them, but capitalism gone awry, despite all evidence to the contrary, with the implication of this being that all it will take to fix things is essentially regulatory tinkering, whether it be Zuboff's consumer advocacy or Doctorow's antitrust strengthening. While there are problems with Evgeny Morozov's review of Zuboff (along with it having a different aim of evaluating whether or not surveillance capitalism really is a new economic order), it at least correctly targets capitalism (and collaboration with the state) as the main culprit of tech's social problems: https://thebaffler.com/latest/capital...
It sucks because there are some good parts in here. The hesitancy to treat information as property because of problems of ownership or to mandate tech companies to police themselves because it will ensure only those big enough to have the resources to police themselves will continue to exist are good points (though at least the latter implicitly hopes for the unlikely scenario of competition among tech firms incentivizing them to behave in more socially responsible ways, which lol). The point that there's nothing special about tech that forces it to tend toward monopoly, or acknowledging that tons of industries have become more monopolized, are all great acknowledgements. If only these types of insights could be widened into different levels and areas of analysis along more dimensions like the economic-historical to see that there's not much special about this era of capitalism and the state in general, and that these tech problems are not because we're doing capitalism and the state wrong, but because we're doing them at all.
The first thing to note is that it makes next to no use of any studies or reporting, discussion of specific events, etc, though when it does it's for things that really don't matter. Just a straightforward narrative about the problems with Big Tech, their causes, and how to fix them, but almost entirely without convincing evidence. It's this kind of quotidian narrative-building from the accumulated background knowledge of reading about this stuff, rather than a more conscious effort at studying the historical, economic, and more types of changes, contexts, etc, that make this analysis clearly casual and surface-level. Other things that are signs of that are the small factual or logical mistakes littered throughout, the bad takes (LGBT rights expanded thanks to the existence of a private realm for LGBT people to explore themselves? Really?), and the self-contradictions (one chapter oscillates at least four times between saying that tech lobbying is muscular and that it's ineffective).
Doctorow is emphatic about what the ultimate problem behind all this is: monopolism. There are other things attached to this, like regulatory capture, more general corruption, and whatnot, but monopoly capitalism is the ultimate cause in Doctorow's eyes. This makes the analysis not that different from Zuboff's because it is not capitalism that is the problem, according to them, but capitalism gone awry, despite all evidence to the contrary, with the implication of this being that all it will take to fix things is essentially regulatory tinkering, whether it be Zuboff's consumer advocacy or Doctorow's antitrust strengthening. While there are problems with Evgeny Morozov's review of Zuboff (along with it having a different aim of evaluating whether or not surveillance capitalism really is a new economic order), it at least correctly targets capitalism (and collaboration with the state) as the main culprit of tech's social problems: https://thebaffler.com/latest/capital...
It sucks because there are some good parts in here. The hesitancy to treat information as property because of problems of ownership or to mandate tech companies to police themselves because it will ensure only those big enough to have the resources to police themselves will continue to exist are good points (though at least the latter implicitly hopes for the unlikely scenario of competition among tech firms incentivizing them to behave in more socially responsible ways, which lol). The point that there's nothing special about tech that forces it to tend toward monopoly, or acknowledging that tons of industries have become more monopolized, are all great acknowledgements. If only these types of insights could be widened into different levels and areas of analysis along more dimensions like the economic-historical to see that there's not much special about this era of capitalism and the state in general, and that these tech problems are not because we're doing capitalism and the state wrong, but because we're doing them at all.
March 8, 2021
This a free book available on Medium. Interesting discussion on the status of Big Tech disputing the assumption that tech companies can and will regulate themselves to fix the Internet. Can we fix Big Tech companies that dominate our Internet or can we fix it by ourselves, free of the Big Tech influence? One of the main points discussed by the author is monopoly. His point is:
"Surveillance capitalism if the result of monopoly. Monopoly is the cause, and surveillance capitalism and its negative outcomes are the effects of monopoly".Monopoly enables mass scale surveillance. Good food for thought!
January 3, 2021
A lot continues to be written about artificial intelligence and machine learning – most of it nonsense, which makes it especially refreshing and valuable to encounter a book for a popular audience that takes a wide perspective while treating the science and technology properly and accurately.
What effects is surveillance capitalism having on politics and society? Doctorow identifies the problem as one of monopoly rather than of technology, with the proviso that technology makes monopoly far more powerful than it might otherwise be. Monopoly deprives people of opportunities for choice by crowding-out other voices and services; technology then magnifies the ability to target specific groups who can be identified because of monopoly data collection.
But he also explodes the hypocrisy and pretensions of the tech giants. Hypocritical in gorging on the "digital smoke" we emit for free through the use of devices and services, while claiming ownership of that data and anything arising from it. Pretensious in making claims to the efficacy of their digital targeting that is wildly excessive compared to the limited success that machine learning can show in proper scientific trials. He also nails the dangers of loading0-up "Big Tech" with responsibilities to police their content, the expense of which puts a floor under the size of company who can come into the market: perhaps why these regulations aren't being fought too vigorously.
What effects is surveillance capitalism having on politics and society? Doctorow identifies the problem as one of monopoly rather than of technology, with the proviso that technology makes monopoly far more powerful than it might otherwise be. Monopoly deprives people of opportunities for choice by crowding-out other voices and services; technology then magnifies the ability to target specific groups who can be identified because of monopoly data collection.
But he also explodes the hypocrisy and pretensions of the tech giants. Hypocritical in gorging on the "digital smoke" we emit for free through the use of devices and services, while claiming ownership of that data and anything arising from it. Pretensious in making claims to the efficacy of their digital targeting that is wildly excessive compared to the limited success that machine learning can show in proper scientific trials. He also nails the dangers of loading0-up "Big Tech" with responsibilities to police their content, the expense of which puts a floor under the size of company who can come into the market: perhaps why these regulations aren't being fought too vigorously.
September 6, 2020
An online book that argues against magical thinking about the power of surveillance capitalism (ie cash for clicks, perfect targeting through massive information accretion, etc.) and documents the ways in which old fashioned monopolistic lobbying has protected and insulated today’s largest high tech companies. Doctorow argues that while the dangers of these hyper rich companies are extreme, the remedies are the same as they have been forever: bust up the trusts.
September 11, 2021
The book addresses a lot of important topics, but in the end, it's really just a polemic, mostly because it's just pamphlet sized, and lacks the supporting information in the form of notes and other references. The author's points would be much more strongly made if this were included
February 2, 2021
Please do your old pal Joey a solid and read this book. It's important.
February 1, 2023
"Doctorow married Alice Taylor in October 2008;[20] they have a daughter named Poesy Emmeline Fibonacci Nautilus Taylor Doctorow, who was born in 2008."
May 13, 2025
Around the turn of the century, everyone was filled with optimism about the future. Moore’s law was in full swing. The internet was connecting more and more people each day. People were just realizing the potential of computers. Humanity’s forward progress seemed exponential, and the horizons limitless.
Fast-forward to the present day. Conspiracy theories – which have spread via the internet – have caused real-world damage. Epidemics accelerated by vaccine denial, genocides started by racist conspiracies, and a global climate catastrophe expedited by climate change denial – to name a few. The internet today is dominated by a handful of large, profit-driven corporations. Social media addiction has become a major societal problem. Surveillance – both state and corporate – has created an endless appetite for personal data. As the web has become commercialized, much of the initial optimism around computers & technology has faded.
What happened? How did the technological landscape – which seemingly held so much optimism and promise for humanity – become like this?
The answer is complicated, but Doctorow, in this book, chalks it up to Reagan-era deregulation – allowing a handful of companies to become dominant, and allowing monopoly-like behavior to go unchecked. Specifically, Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general – Robert Bork – is to blame, according to Doctorow.
By Doctorow’s definition, Bork was a madman. Bork believed that the Sherman Act – which broke up Rockefeller Standard Oil, the largest-ever corporation at the time – did not apply to monopolies. That conclusion, by all accounts, is extreme, unsupported, and incorrect.
Bork’s theories, while deranged, appeased a particular group of people – the ultra-rich. Because this doctrine catered to their interests, it received generous backing and support, and Borkian doctrine took hold.
Around this time, companies Apple and Microsoft were still in their infancy. Bork’s setback in antitrust progress allowed these companies to grow far beyond comfort. Today, Apple and Microsoft are the two largest companies in the world by market capitalization. In the late 90s, Google and Amazon would arise with the advent of the web. Borkian doctrine created the perfect conditions for today’s pantheon of big tech companies to form.
Among these companies, two two distinct business models formed. Doctorow refers to them as the “lock-in” and “surveillance” models.
“Lock-in” is best exemplified by Apple. Apple has created a vast, elaborate, and incredibly well-sealed-off “walled garden” ecosystem. This ecosystem is plagued by incompatibility with other products & services, forced sales commissions, and vetting/pre-approval of all apps in the App Store. Additionally, by complicating right-to-repair (and purposefully breaking their products), Apple has ensured their centrality in everything you do that relates to their product.
The “surveillance” model is best exemplified by Google. By comparison, this model is quite simple – become primarily ad-focused, and turn your users into data-generating, ad-viewing machines. Here, the costs generated from harvested user data displace the need for planned obsolescence.
How do we deter companies from becoming big enough to resort to using these business models? One antidote Doctorow suggests is by reforming some of the antitrust legislation that Bork left in tatters in the 1980s. Doctorow – who is very knowledgeable about copyright & DRM laws – is suggests some reforms to antitrust policy.
“Once they start, shareholders in every industry will start to eye their investments in monopolists skeptically. As trustbusters ride into town and start making lives miserable for monopolists, the debate around every corporate boardroom’s table will shift”(128).
In conclusion, Doctorow paints a great picture of the intricate web of factors that have led to the tech landscape today. By tracing threads back in time, he suggests ways we can reform.
I’d like to add that I’ve bought another one of his books – Walkaway. It's not nearly as good, and I don't think Doctorow's style is suited for fiction. Not sure if I'll ever have the will to finish it, but it certainly is a page-turner.
Also, if you like Doctorow, check out his article on Enshittification. It's great, well-written, and remarkably accurate. That's what inspired me to delve further into his works.
Fast-forward to the present day. Conspiracy theories – which have spread via the internet – have caused real-world damage. Epidemics accelerated by vaccine denial, genocides started by racist conspiracies, and a global climate catastrophe expedited by climate change denial – to name a few. The internet today is dominated by a handful of large, profit-driven corporations. Social media addiction has become a major societal problem. Surveillance – both state and corporate – has created an endless appetite for personal data. As the web has become commercialized, much of the initial optimism around computers & technology has faded.
What happened? How did the technological landscape – which seemingly held so much optimism and promise for humanity – become like this?
The answer is complicated, but Doctorow, in this book, chalks it up to Reagan-era deregulation – allowing a handful of companies to become dominant, and allowing monopoly-like behavior to go unchecked. Specifically, Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general – Robert Bork – is to blame, according to Doctorow.
By Doctorow’s definition, Bork was a madman. Bork believed that the Sherman Act – which broke up Rockefeller Standard Oil, the largest-ever corporation at the time – did not apply to monopolies. That conclusion, by all accounts, is extreme, unsupported, and incorrect.
Bork’s theories, while deranged, appeased a particular group of people – the ultra-rich. Because this doctrine catered to their interests, it received generous backing and support, and Borkian doctrine took hold.
Around this time, companies Apple and Microsoft were still in their infancy. Bork’s setback in antitrust progress allowed these companies to grow far beyond comfort. Today, Apple and Microsoft are the two largest companies in the world by market capitalization. In the late 90s, Google and Amazon would arise with the advent of the web. Borkian doctrine created the perfect conditions for today’s pantheon of big tech companies to form.
Among these companies, two two distinct business models formed. Doctorow refers to them as the “lock-in” and “surveillance” models.
“Lock-in” is best exemplified by Apple. Apple has created a vast, elaborate, and incredibly well-sealed-off “walled garden” ecosystem. This ecosystem is plagued by incompatibility with other products & services, forced sales commissions, and vetting/pre-approval of all apps in the App Store. Additionally, by complicating right-to-repair (and purposefully breaking their products), Apple has ensured their centrality in everything you do that relates to their product.
The “surveillance” model is best exemplified by Google. By comparison, this model is quite simple – become primarily ad-focused, and turn your users into data-generating, ad-viewing machines. Here, the costs generated from harvested user data displace the need for planned obsolescence.
How do we deter companies from becoming big enough to resort to using these business models? One antidote Doctorow suggests is by reforming some of the antitrust legislation that Bork left in tatters in the 1980s. Doctorow – who is very knowledgeable about copyright & DRM laws – is suggests some reforms to antitrust policy.
“Once they start, shareholders in every industry will start to eye their investments in monopolists skeptically. As trustbusters ride into town and start making lives miserable for monopolists, the debate around every corporate boardroom’s table will shift”(128).
In conclusion, Doctorow paints a great picture of the intricate web of factors that have led to the tech landscape today. By tracing threads back in time, he suggests ways we can reform.
I’d like to add that I’ve bought another one of his books – Walkaway. It's not nearly as good, and I don't think Doctorow's style is suited for fiction. Not sure if I'll ever have the will to finish it, but it certainly is a page-turner.
Also, if you like Doctorow, check out his article on Enshittification. It's great, well-written, and remarkably accurate. That's what inspired me to delve further into his works.
October 5, 2023
I read this book because I had just finished The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which I found much too dark and conspiracy-oriented, and I find that Cory Doctorow's book/essay gives a more realistic view of the capabilities of surveillance capitalism.
Oh, and I asked ChatGPT to compare the two books, and though it feels like cheating, I will share it, because I totally agree:
"Both Cory Doctorow and Shoshana Zuboff are accomplished authors and experts who have contributed to the discourse on surveillance capitalism in their own ways. Their books, 'How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism' and 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,' offer valuable insights into a topic of critical importance in the digital age.
Doctorow's book primarily focuses on practical strategies and tools to combat surveillance capitalism. He provides readers with clear and action-oriented guidance on how to protect their privacy and data, as well as how to participate in movements and initiatives working to challenge the power of surveillance capitalism. His approach is direct and encourages activism and empowerment.
On the other hand, Zuboff's 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism' is an in-depth analysis of how surveillance capitalism has emerged, evolved, and impacted society at large. She explores the economic, social, and political implications of this form of capitalism and warns about the threats it poses to individual privacy and society's democratic values. Her book is an intellectual journey that provides a deeper understanding of the complex mechanisms driving surveillance capitalism.
In summary, Doctorow's book is more action-oriented and equips readers with tools to take immediate steps to protect themselves from surveillance. Zuboff's book, on the other hand, is more theoretical and provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the roots and scope of the problem. Both books have their unique strengths and target audiences. If you are looking for concrete steps to shield yourself from surveillance, Doctorow's book would be more relevant. If you desire a deeper understanding of how surveillance capitalism operates and its broader implications, Zuboff's book would be the better choice. Together, these two books offer a comprehensive perspective on surveillance capitalism that can assist readers in navigating this complex and challenging reality."
Oh, and I asked ChatGPT to compare the two books, and though it feels like cheating, I will share it, because I totally agree:
"Both Cory Doctorow and Shoshana Zuboff are accomplished authors and experts who have contributed to the discourse on surveillance capitalism in their own ways. Their books, 'How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism' and 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,' offer valuable insights into a topic of critical importance in the digital age.
Doctorow's book primarily focuses on practical strategies and tools to combat surveillance capitalism. He provides readers with clear and action-oriented guidance on how to protect their privacy and data, as well as how to participate in movements and initiatives working to challenge the power of surveillance capitalism. His approach is direct and encourages activism and empowerment.
On the other hand, Zuboff's 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism' is an in-depth analysis of how surveillance capitalism has emerged, evolved, and impacted society at large. She explores the economic, social, and political implications of this form of capitalism and warns about the threats it poses to individual privacy and society's democratic values. Her book is an intellectual journey that provides a deeper understanding of the complex mechanisms driving surveillance capitalism.
In summary, Doctorow's book is more action-oriented and equips readers with tools to take immediate steps to protect themselves from surveillance. Zuboff's book, on the other hand, is more theoretical and provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the roots and scope of the problem. Both books have their unique strengths and target audiences. If you are looking for concrete steps to shield yourself from surveillance, Doctorow's book would be more relevant. If you desire a deeper understanding of how surveillance capitalism operates and its broader implications, Zuboff's book would be the better choice. Together, these two books offer a comprehensive perspective on surveillance capitalism that can assist readers in navigating this complex and challenging reality."
February 19, 2022
Doctorow delivers another great exploration and distillation of the challenges, problems, and issues that are embedded in technological and economic systems in our world today. In particular, he looks at the complexities and misunderstandings about how surveillance capitalism thrives in the 21st century but not as a new threat but as an extension of corporate attempts at monopolies that have long been a threat to democracy and any meaningful and reasonable forms of capitalism. Doctorow's at his best when breaking down these relationships and offering an insightful critique of those who think surveillance capitalism is acceptable or inevitable. It's clear he's drawing on both his own experience, as an author who has made a living writing and not being as restrictive about intellectual property as many of the software companies are (and the problems with how they patent vague things in order to have further control over things they have no business controlling) as well as his frustration with the limitations that companies put on the things that we buy and own. It's a great book for folks trying to wrap their head around surveillance capitalism and the problems that it creates for any given society both in terms of consumer choice and also, a political choice. Where he seems to flail a little bit is connecting his argument with his title, how to destroy surveillance capitalism. One does not walk away with a stronger sense of what to do, how to do it, or what might it look light, rather, readers walk away with a sense that this is already a giant problem with no firm or easy solutions. In that way, it can feel frustrating to get to the end, feel the depth of Doctorow's argument and begin to see it in one's everyday life but not have a clear means to act. Still, it's worth the read or the listen for all of us.
April 21, 2025
Despite its repetitiveness - in a very American fashion, one might add - quite a good book. It challenges the base assumption that social media fosters an environment of powerful mass manipulation, and positions "radicalisation" as the effective identification and conversion of vulnerable people. In doing so, it calls Big Tech's bluff on its capabilities to modify people's thoughts and episteme.
The economics of the book retrieve the past, arguing for a breakup of tech monopoly through antitrust measures and civil actions. Implicitly, platform dominance is challenged. Doctorow wants an Internet that is once again free: People given the freedom of choice to communicate using the service they so choose.
It is interesting to reflect on the discourse regarding TikTok and regulatory policy in this context. If the ability of social media to manipulate people is (a) exaggerated and (b) mediated by their material and social conditions, then the sale of TikTok to an American tech giant would be the worst possible outcome, because it leads to further conglomerisation and monopolistic control of the media landscape.
Yet it is also here that Doctorow's economic imagination is most lacking. He envisions the state's role as merely regulatory. Alternatives to the technological giants-that-be may well be funded with state budgets. Competition is a welcome mechanism, but it is also insufficient by itself. Compliance is the name of the game, compliance to a specific political goal. And if that goal is the genuine free flow of information to create the basis for social collaboration, all the better.
C.K. 17/04/20XY
The economics of the book retrieve the past, arguing for a breakup of tech monopoly through antitrust measures and civil actions. Implicitly, platform dominance is challenged. Doctorow wants an Internet that is once again free: People given the freedom of choice to communicate using the service they so choose.
It is interesting to reflect on the discourse regarding TikTok and regulatory policy in this context. If the ability of social media to manipulate people is (a) exaggerated and (b) mediated by their material and social conditions, then the sale of TikTok to an American tech giant would be the worst possible outcome, because it leads to further conglomerisation and monopolistic control of the media landscape.
Yet it is also here that Doctorow's economic imagination is most lacking. He envisions the state's role as merely regulatory. Alternatives to the technological giants-that-be may well be funded with state budgets. Competition is a welcome mechanism, but it is also insufficient by itself. Compliance is the name of the game, compliance to a specific political goal. And if that goal is the genuine free flow of information to create the basis for social collaboration, all the better.
C.K. 17/04/20XY
November 18, 2021
Cory Doctorow is an incredible thinker and has been involved in digital rights activism for a while now. I had high expectations of this book and I am somewhat disappointed.
For me, the main takeaways from this extended essay were 1) "Monopolism" is the core reason why Big Tech is an issue. 2) The persuasion capabilities of Big Tech, enabled by surveillance and incessant data hoarding, aren't as effective as advertised. 3) Increasing susceptibility to baseless conspiracy theories is mostly because of material conditions i.e. lived experience of watching actual conspiracies unfold.
Doctorow's essay makes a convincing case for 1) but merely states 2) repeatedly without much backing. In fact, a lot of the assertions felt as if they were only supported by analogies and not by concrete sources. The book also loses structure towards the end. I usually refrain from making the "this-could-have-been-a-blogpost" critique, but this essay did seem like it could have been crisper.
Having critiqued the essay, I'd still recommend it because of the case that Doctorow makes against monopolies.
For me, the main takeaways from this extended essay were 1) "Monopolism" is the core reason why Big Tech is an issue. 2) The persuasion capabilities of Big Tech, enabled by surveillance and incessant data hoarding, aren't as effective as advertised. 3) Increasing susceptibility to baseless conspiracy theories is mostly because of material conditions i.e. lived experience of watching actual conspiracies unfold.
Doctorow's essay makes a convincing case for 1) but merely states 2) repeatedly without much backing. In fact, a lot of the assertions felt as if they were only supported by analogies and not by concrete sources. The book also loses structure towards the end. I usually refrain from making the "this-could-have-been-a-blogpost" critique, but this essay did seem like it could have been crisper.
Having critiqued the essay, I'd still recommend it because of the case that Doctorow makes against monopolies.
May 29, 2022
A variety of good ideas in this book, including the central thesis: that surveillance capitalism isn't really some special all-powerful form of capitalism. But I'm not convinced of trust-busting, reanimated antitrust law as a weapon against Big Tech is the solution.
I find it curious that Doctorow mentions the antitrust case against IBM that was rendered moot by the personal computer revolution, but doesn't note that AT&T was broken up, only to rise again in the Internet Age.
I will, however, heartily agree with the best idea he expresses here:
"I believe that online tools are the key to overcoming problems that are much more urgent than tech monopolization: climate change; inequality; misogyny; and discrimination on the basis of race, gender identity, and other factors. The internet is how we will recruit people to fight those fights, and how we will coordinate their labor. Tech is not a substitute for democratic accountability, the rule of law, fairness, or stability--but it's a means to achieve these things. "Tech is Different, " p104-5
I find it curious that Doctorow mentions the antitrust case against IBM that was rendered moot by the personal computer revolution, but doesn't note that AT&T was broken up, only to rise again in the Internet Age.
I will, however, heartily agree with the best idea he expresses here:
"I believe that online tools are the key to overcoming problems that are much more urgent than tech monopolization: climate change; inequality; misogyny; and discrimination on the basis of race, gender identity, and other factors. The internet is how we will recruit people to fight those fights, and how we will coordinate their labor. Tech is not a substitute for democratic accountability, the rule of law, fairness, or stability--but it's a means to achieve these things. "Tech is Different, " p104-5
April 16, 2025
I like that he exhaustively says that Surveillance Capitalism goes hand in hand with Government Surveillance. It is the only way to justify the existence of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Otherwise, neither the stock value nor the revenues and profits are consistent since the advertising pie is not as big as they claim. Other sources of finance for different purposes are what sustain Facebook, Twitter, etc. Population Sentiment and Opinion Surveillance and Control is one of the first that comes to my mind, and it's proven to be successful since the poor-right that supports the ultra-rich agenda is a clear driver of their opinion.
The book is right on many levels about how predatory, far-right capitalism has corrupted the system in all ways. He proposes several solutions, but the problem is that this system is the ideology of the moment and has captured public opinion, so it will be difficult to change anything. I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 since some subjects could have been developed more thoroughly.
The book is right on many levels about how predatory, far-right capitalism has corrupted the system in all ways. He proposes several solutions, but the problem is that this system is the ideology of the moment and has captured public opinion, so it will be difficult to change anything. I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 since some subjects could have been developed more thoroughly.
June 15, 2022
I found myself agreeing with the main points of the book, the critiques of "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," and ultimately the overall premise, but at times I felt like the sections jumped around a bit or repeated themselves. Nonetheless, Cory Doctorow's views on surveillance capitalism (especially the targeted ad industry) and the tech giants behind it is one that feels rooted it truth and common sense. When reading "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," the claims made often had me thinking "what?! no way!" After reading this book, it feels more like "yeah, no way..."
The topic of "adversarial interoperability" is one that I found most interesting, as it describes a way of using technology not as a source of distraction and anxiety, but one of freedom and democracy. It allows the reader to imagine a time (past or future) where our devices serve us, connect us, and empower us, not other interests.
The topic of "adversarial interoperability" is one that I found most interesting, as it describes a way of using technology not as a source of distraction and anxiety, but one of freedom and democracy. It allows the reader to imagine a time (past or future) where our devices serve us, connect us, and empower us, not other interests.
July 29, 2021
This book is extremely short at 138 pages with lots of spacing. I think it's great for someone who is intimidated by tech,and issues relating to digital rights, surveillance, monopoly, etc. That would be me. I think a better title could have been chosen as the writing style is more of a laid-back exposition than a rousing call to arms which could throw the reader's expectations off. Doctorow offers some interesting (and by no means arrogant) counterpoints to Shoshana Zuboff's, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism". So, if you or someone you know wants to get a feel for the issues without being inundated, this is an excellent introduction which may whet the appetite for further readings.
June 13, 2022
Doctorow’s How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism argues that the rise of big tech powerhouses (Google & Facebook, chiefly) who command much of the Internet’s traffic or serve as giant platforms for destructive minorities to broadcast their views and radicalize others owes not to the unique nature of these industries, but to their growth during a period of deregulation: he points to the concentration of other services and industries in the same timeframe as proof that the legal environment of American tech corporations has been the main reason for their success, not necessarily their unique nature or skill for innovation. Google innovated and mastered one thing, Doctorow writes — Search — and the rest of its commercial dominion has come from purchasing other products like Android and then fusing them with its own. I was disappointed that an author as deeply immersed in the culture of the free web (witness his characters’ frequent evasions of corporate-state spyware in the Little Brother and Pirate Cinema books) could only suggest More Regulation as the solution, especially given that Doctorow frequently pointed out how often the regulators of industries are drawn from the industry’s own executive pool. That is not a unique quirk of big tech: it happens in every industry that’s regulated, and it’s how corporations create rules to shelter them at the expense of their competitors. And it gets worse, because as Doctorow points out, the state has a vested interest in maintaining the potency of big tech, using the corporate mesh of surveillance and data collection to feed its own desires for information about potential reichsfeinde. Doctorow’s analysis is fine, but the recommendation is feeble and uninteresting to anyone who is seriously concerned about solutions for subverting big tech.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews