Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary

Advertising and online advertising are different things. Advertising was a thing, long before technology. Great ad people (like David Ogilvy) was created effective, targeted advertising and achieved success. How to Create Advertising That Sells Ad by David Ogilvy [1972] link What I meant was, there is nothing wrong with advertising, or targeting right people to deliver value, products, services to them with creative approaches. Online advertising though, especially programmatic, is totally a different scheme. I suggest reading more about; "Surveillance Capitalism" Professor Shoshana Zuboff, author of “[The Age of Surveillance Capitalism]( link , who coined the term surveillance capitalism in 2014, defines it as; " …the unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. These data are then computed and packaged as prediction products and sold into behavioral futures markets — business customers with a commercial interest in knowing what we will do now, soon, and later." In an interview with The Gurdian, Zuboff explains how surveillance capitalism is a human creation; >It lives in history, not in technological inevitability. It was pioneered and elaborated through trial and error at Google in much the same way that the Ford Motor Company discovered the new economics of mass production or General Motors discovered the logic of managerial capitalism. >Surveillance capitalism was invented around 2001 as the solution to fi

> For skeptics, Bremmer poses this question: Who will do more to influence the outcome of next year’s US midterm congressional elections: The President of the United States or the CEO of Meta? According to Bremmer, since the vote will be influenced by both real-world rules changes and the online flow of information, the answer isn’t obvious. The question is flawed. Better would be: - From the perspective of the status quo power (i.e., US government) what is the bigger threat to that power persisting or not, China or Big Tech? (Hint: It's not China). - Put a slightly different way, on a day to day basis who is better positioned to influence the thoughts and decisions of individuals, some elected official or Big Tech? --- While she doesn't get heavily into gov v tech per se, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" does a thorough job of framing the massive depth and breadth of tech's power, especially when it comes to tracking and influence. --- ▶ this video

Has Nobel bar been lowered? I can't tell if this is a misunderstanding of the current state of the world, hypocrisy, or a combination of both. The State (as well as traditional Media), regardless of country, is losing its power and influence. Big Tech knows more and thus is able to influence more. The USA and other "democracies" are not immune to this shift. If nothing else, Covid has swung the pendulum back a bit, or has at least delayed Big Tech's complete undermining of the long standing status quo. That status quo isn't going to surrender. So do not expect 21st Century totalitarianism to look like the 20th Century variety. No one saw it coming then, just as too few see it coming now. I mention this book often on HN, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" spells out the history and The Truth in a very 21st Century way. ▶ this video Calling out Russia isn't bold or new. In fact, it's a dangerous distraction.

The article has a minor flaw that should be highlighted. Per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" the issue isn't the surveillance per se. It's how that awareness is used against us. That is, the Surveillance Capitalist isn't simply watching, there's a feedback loop that allows them to influence. Influence where to go. Influence what to buy. Ultimately, influence what to think. It's not about surveillance. It's about control. ▶ this video

FB is primarily a data collection and behavior directing organization. Surveillance Capitalism is real. ▶ this video

Not speaking for NeuralCam, but for big tech the business model for this kind of software would be surveillance capitalism, which is why they will offer it "free". ▶ this video For that reason, I'd expect NeuralCam to end up as an acquisition, depending on their motivation, resources, and all the rest.

Pot. Kettle. No such thing as a free lunch. Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary ▶ this video

Google is the world's biggest advertising company. It makes its money by offering advertisers the highest return possible on their advertising dollars. Google is able to do that by predicting what you will click on before you click, and charging advertisers a premium to make sure the link that's underneath your mouse or your finger when you click is going to their product site. How does Google know what you are likely to click on? Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary ▶ this video

"This is being conducted at a layer that is not accessible to us." -- Professor Shoshana Zubuff Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary ▶ this video

Facebook and Google. Money. No way. Those two companies are having absolutely no trust from my side, they have abused the trust so often, that they no loger know what the term means. I dont care what they do, I dont care how usefull their "gifts" are. Just NO. They have seriously flawed internet and human society as it was (is) and there is just no way I will let them into my finance. One is goverment, something completely different is survailance capitalism ( ▶ this video and there is a book that I would put in schools for mandatory reading: link ) "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." ("Beware of Danaans bringing the gift", reference to Trojan horse, link ) p.s.: people downvoting, you just dont understand what you are against with. Educate yourself, please, this is no longer the time of cheering for your favorite coorporation, the things have gone over the edge.

Can we see some executable hashes, file names and network activity to prove it? Also, there is digital surveillance being monetized in iOS and Android phones and tablets innately. Why else would FAANG basically give them away? Calling out one minor company is a drop in the overall bucket. See also a video on surveillance capitalism: ▶ this video