Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Assess the Implications of the Development of Social Media and Surveillance Capitalism for Business, Ethics, and Personal Liberty
Social media and surveillance capitalism have completely changed the way companies work, more specifically when it comes to how they handle people’s personal data. All of the changes started raising a lot of concerns about privacy, ethics, and personal freedom. Surveillance capitalism, as Shoshana Zuboff explains, is about collecting user data in order to predict and even shape people’s behavior, turning people’s experiences into a business product (Zuboff, p. 3) . Even though it brings huge profits, it also raises serious questions about whether companies value, and respect people’s rights or if they just see them as products or a piece of business. In this essay, I argue that surveillance capitalism is a major threat to privacy, ethics, and democracy. Which must be taken very seriously. I believe social media companies are prioritizing profit over people’s rights by treating users like commodities rather than individuals with personal freedom.
Starting with one of the biggest problems with surveillance capitalism which is how it dismisses the users privacy. Social media companies like Facebook and Google illegally and unethically collect lots of personal data about their users without being upfront about how much or what they actually gathered. They track everything from searches to what users clicks, which they then build detailed profiles on each user that reveal a lot of personal information (Snakenbroek, p. 59) . For many people, it they understand that it’s invasive, and that they are being followed, yet they have no choice but to accept these terms if they want to stay connected to social media which is essential to live in todays modern world. It’s like privacy isn’t even an option. Users are practically forced to sacrifice privacy for connection with the online world, making them question how much control they actually have over their data.
The general lack of transparency from social media platforms specifically about data collection adds another layer to the privacy concerns. Social media platforms don’t clearly explain how detailed these profiles are or how they are even collecting this data. Even small actions, like a “like” on a post, or a “comment” are added into a growing profile that companies can analyze and use. This hidden, continuous collection is making users trapped in a system where they don’t fully understand what’s being recorded, and collected. Which is a clear breech of trust, and guidelines. people should know what these platforms know about them, and what exactly is being colleteced about the users, and what these platforms are going to do with all the information collected from users. This raises real questions about the balance of power between users and these big tech corporations.
Surveillance capitalism does not just mean data collection, it’s also platforms actively manipulating people’s behavior. Social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube use algorithms in order to keep users engaged by showing them content that aligns with what the platform thinks they’ll want to see. This is guiding people’s choices and keeping them hooked (Yeung, p. 120) . As a result people end up hooked in “rabbit holes” of constantly engaging content, sometimes even influencing or pushing certain agendas or users.
The even more concerning part is how discreet this manipulation is. People think they’re choosing what they see, but really it’s just the agenda that is being pushed on them. It challenges the idea of free will, making users feel like their decisions are completely their own when they’re actually being shaped by algorithms, and agendas. Social media stops being just a tool for connection it becomes a way for companies to subtly influence what users see, think, and do. And that raises serious ethical concerns about how much influence these platforms should have over people’s choices.
Surveillance capitalism’s reach goes beyond individuals it is a threat to democracy itself. Social media platforms are extremely powerful where they can shape political views and can even affect election outcomes. The Cambridge Analytica scandal showed how data was used to target specific groups of people, where they influenced their political opinions during major events like the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit (Jones, p. 243) .
This is now challenging freedom and democracy of people and countries, where it’s a threat to nation’s sovereignty.
This is extremely dangerous as people don’t even realize they’re being influenced, and guided. They don’t know that the ads and content they see are specifically tailored to change their views. This hidden manipulation challenges the very foundation of democracy, where every voice should be a genuine, independent choice, not something that is shaped by ads. It’s also extremely difficult to voice our concerns, and spread awareness over this topic as we could easily be censored by the social media platforms.
There’s also the ethical side of surveillance capitalism when it comes to consent. Most people don’t understand what they’re signing up for when they accept the terms and conditions on these social media platforms. These agreements are written in a very vague way making it hard for everyday users to understand what they’re agreeing to (Snakenbroek, p. 64) . Many people don’t realize how their data is actually being used, because of the vague guidelines, and codes set. It’s also questionable holding young teens accountable for a agreement they signed at the age of 13 of 14. Does it really count as fair consent at that age? Is it really fair to hold them accountable to something they signed at such a young age?
This disconnect between what companies know and what users understand shows a serious power imbalance. Most users don’t understand how their data is being used, while companies hold all the cards. By keeping people in the dark, companies can benefit financially without any accountability. This imbalance power imbalance is a major ethical issue which needs to be faced.
Surveillance capitalism treats users as commodities to be monetized. Social media companies prioritize gathering user data to increase ad revenue, essentially turning personal information into a business asset (Zuboff, p. 63) . This illegal approach changes the relationship between users and the platforms, making users feel like products rather than valued customers, It’s unethical, and illegal. Up to this point social media platforms continue to use this unetheicl, and illegal ways of collecting user data as their is no higher power that is stopping them, nor any major resistance from people.
This changes the nature of the relationship between users and platforms from a service to a transaction. Instead of valuing users as people, they’re seen as sources of profit. The commodification of data doesn’t just threaten privacy. People’s personal information is constantly monitored, analyzed, and sold to the highest bidder. The whole approach is more like exploitation than a service that we use. Social media platforms don’t even consider morality of it like who am I selling the data to, and what are they going to do with it. It’s just automatically sold to the highest bidder, which doesn’t always work with good
surveillance capitalism also takes advantage of people’s emotional vulnerabilities. Social media platforms create algorithms that target users during emotionally sensitive times. By pushing content that will keep them engaged, often leading to impulsive decisions or purchases. This tactic maximizes profit, especially when targeting younger, more impressionable users (Yeung, p. 125) . This kind of manipulation raises real ethical concerns. Companies are putting peoples wellbeing’s at risk for profit.
Using people’s emotions for profit shows a lack of respect for their mental health. Platforms exploit people’s emotional states, knowing that they’ll be more likely to engage with certain types of content or ads. It’s one thing to show people relevant ads, but it’s another to manipulate them during vulnerable moments to maximize engagement. This strategy raises important questions about how much responsibility these companies have for the well-being of their users, especially when they knowingly exploit emotional states for profit.
Supporters of surveillance capitalism argue that it makes social media more enjoyable by personalizing content. By gathering data, companies can deliver ads and content that fit individual interests, making browsing feel more relevant (Snakenbroek, p. 63) . For example, someone interested in football might see ads for football shoes that match their interests. Even when this personalization adds convenience, it also demands a huge sacrifice in privacy, that not everyone is willing to sacrifice. It also helps small business grow as they are able to showcase their brand for a wider range of people.
Yes I can agree that surveillance capitalism does have some pros, though it comes at a high cost to privacy, ethics, and democracy. Social media companies’ focus on profit over users’ rights which undermines freedom, and their ethical standards. Cases like behavior manipulation, political influence, and privacy invasion show the widespread impacts of surveillance capitalism on society. I strongly believe we need stronger regulations around data use and more transparency to protect the user rights. Surveillance capitalism might help businesses with increased profits, but it risks our freedom and democracy.
References
1. Snakenbroek, S., The Legal Compass, November 22, 2021, pp. 59-64 .
2. Yeung, K., Big Data as a Mode of Regulation, 2017, pp. 118-125 .
3. Zuboff, S., The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, pp. iii, 63 .
4. Jones, J., Reclaiming Media: Answering Surveillance Capitalists with Care-Based Democracy, 2023, pp. 241-254 .
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.