Surveillance Capitalism

Yea Forums being part of Yea Forums commits some of the same sins as the rest of the community: unapologetic hatred and disregard for minorities, rejection of anything marginally critical of the statu quo and the capitalist system, rampant antisemitism, a superior attitude against anything they dont already consider good and acceptable while at the same time an aknowledgement of being the on the margins of society, both on the physical world and specially on the internet.

Taking in account all this, its no suprise they would be not only ddisregarding of this book but outright violent against it.

I know! It should be more like /r/books!

>le reddit
Is that your function here, to mindlessly spout another site as the go to boogeyman?

Dialectical filter in action

>if I repeat enpugh times that everything I disagree with belongs on reddit it will become true at some point!

This is you. Its pathetic.

>Complains about not getting an argument
>Gets an argument
>Proceeds to not argue at all

Attached: FPt0SGaWUAExfF0.jpg (500x703, 28.85K)

Saying reddit and using the same 5 phrases that are ingrained in your brain thanks to spending an unhealthy amount of hours on Yea Forums and adapting its infantile way of reasoning is not an actual argument, thus it merits no counterargument.

>"Your argument is... Not an argument!!!"

Attached: 1640225346093.png (700x676, 83.74K)

Yes, that's a legitimate answer, particularly when that is the case, which it actually is here. What your doing is an intellectual sleight of hand, what I'm doing in return is saying I'm not amused, go try your tricks on someone else.

user, if you have nothing to say just don't say anything. If you legit think it's not worth your time just don't say anything. If you think the argument is valid just don't say anything. It's the fucking internet, if you want a tiny bit of actual discussion then don't just say "hurr durr u are gaslighting me and u r dumb"

And then people complain why liberalism is not taken seriously these days

>And then people complain why liberalism is not taken seriously these days
So that's why you're here, to spout your ideological drivel aimed at your strawman version of liberalism. Lol.

Actual brainlet. Not worth continuing.

Good, now that you've bumped this thread quite a bit with your schizoid ranting, it can finally start being about Zuboff and her book detailing how the elites nowadays are conducting their ruling ways and why it's important that we pay attention to it.

>why it's important that we pay attention to it.
it's not
and normies dont give a shit about privacy

do I need to know anything beyond assuming every mic and camera is live, and all live digital data is everywhere?

Yes, and the book covers it in great detail. That's only the first layer of everything that's going on nowadays, because it's not just about surveillance, it's also about guiding and manipulating people and limiting their control until there's little to none of freedom of choice left because that's what best sells their products to other companies.

Not going to read anything by a woman that ugly.

yea I figured something like that too. Idk, I'm just nine to five-ing it on canned ravioli senpai, errbodys gotta live

>“Industrial capitalism transformed nature’s raw materials into commodities, and surveillance capitalism lays its claims to the stuff of human nature for a new commodity invention. Now it is human nature that is scraped, torn, and taken for another century’s market project. It is obscene to suppose that this harm can be reduced to the obvious fact that users receive no fee for the raw material they supply. That critique is a feat of misdirection that would use a pricing mechanism to institutionalize and therefore legitimate the extraction of human behavior for manufacturing and sale. It ignores the key point that the essence of the exploitation here is the rendering of our lives as behavioral data for the sake of others’ improved control of us. The remarkable questions here concern the facts that our lives are rendered as behavioral data in the first place; that ignorance is a condition of this ubiquitous rendition; that decision rights vanish before one even knows that there is a decision to make; that there are consequences to this diminishment of rights that we can neither see nor foretell; that there is no exit, no voice, and no loyalty, only helplessness, resignation, and psychic numbing; and that encryption is the only positive action left to discuss when we sit around the dinner table and casually ponder how to hide from the forces that hide from us.”
ye she based

>because it's not just about surveillance, it's also about guiding and manipulating people and limiting their control until there's little to none of freedom of choice left
Correct but the bit about products is wrong

...

I'm glad I read it, great overview of the current era and its trajectories. A few things annoyed me.
It suffers from ornate prose which is frustrating but I acclimatised to her writing.
Long stretches of uninteresting waffle (as if the prose wasn't bad enough!).
There was something very wrong about bluetooth or MAC addresses which anyone who has a useful understanding of technology should've picked up on. This left me a bit jaded but it's like 3/4 of the way in and in fairness it doesn't matter much for the books purpose.

Reccomended. Also, this book does circulate Yea Forums but probably drowned out by the dumb fucking retards making and posting in bible threads

I think my dad might be dieing. I got a call from an unknown number. I never answer that immediately, they can text me if htey're real people. I googled it and the number has 0 reports but a number of searches. could be a hospital line. he left a message which was just that I should call him. he did not sound well. I tried to call back but the line was busy. I have checked my shortes route by public transport to the hospital I imagine they would take him to. his phone is turned off. all I can do is wait. this could be the one last shot at any kind of reconciliation. I don't expect it. I thought I forgave him before, but I don't think I actually did. he had a hard life, I think he did a lot for us that did not go appreciated at all. at the same time, at one point I literally planned to murder him. I think an angel stopped me. all I can do for now is wait.

sorry I'm a bit off balance, I though thtis was was wwoym

>at the same time, at one point I literally planned to murder him
still it is beginning to look like all the parts of my life were in the right place, and he sure was a victim of circumstance. it would be bizarre to hold a life I'm happy with against him.

This is not true at all. You're not very intelligent.

Honestly I’m going to give you a bump because
>discussing an actual book
>no frog, wojack or coomer bait as pic related, it’s a picture of the actual book
>it’s not one of the 20 circlejerked books Yea Forums always discusses
Incidentally I have Surveillance Capitalism on my to read list because it’s on the blindpill chart IIRC, I assume it’s about things like Big Data, Silicon Valley and all those ways employers are using to make sure you are being a good productive goy, isn’t it?

based 'jakker

Attached: 1648104159139.jpg (657x527, 33.23K)

How about you say something about the book aside from your one-line low effort garbage shill\
Fuck off and die you piece of shit scumbag

dumb frogposter

Attached: R (50).jpg (1024x962, 66.77K)

The basic premise - that surveillance is a form of value accumulation - is false, and precisely not applying the lesson of Marx implied in the title, which is that capitalism is a temporary structure wherein the two general classes of society have equal and competing interests. Ascension of surveillance marks the collapse of capitalism into neomonarchism, not some "mutation" in the form of value which post-Frankfurt weenies like to masturbate over. Plus, the author looks like a tranny.

he needed money. that's fine. good scare.

What's there to discuss about it though? Books like these are just opiates for liberals anyway, there have been books warning about the dangers of X technology since the beginning of literature itself, and nothing ever gets done anyway. So books like it just functions like a recreational drug for people with 1 standard deviation above the mean IQ.

Attached: cringe.jpg (498x358, 50.91K)

I wonder what her Early Life is.

I feel like putting capitalism in a book's title is just an easy hack to get published.

i've been finding books like this frustrating. most of it is filler-fluff, the author lamenting on how much we're suffering due to x issue at hand. then the actual guts of it, empirical evidence, is stretched thin, nit-picked and obviously bias. foucault was better at this shit. he would just autistically lay out as many examples as possible without crying 'please think of the children' or 'what about this bright, empty alternative I thought of without outlining any praxis' every half-paragraph (maybe excluding interviews). like said, history is just repeating itself, business as usual, language speaks us and speaks itself. it doesn't inform us, it instructs us, it commands us. the idea of 'human' rewritten to suit the needs of a future that has a will without us. the virtuous man will never be what it was, it will only be a copy, a phantasm, a revision, which it always was. but you know.. 'fight for a human future'. the future isn't human.

It's funny, I had the same initial reaction to Zuboff and assumed she would be another example of low hanging fruit stretched too thin, but I ended up watching a Youtube documentary about her surveillance capitalism and was impressed by her synoptic view of the surveillance state.

I am pretty antisemitic, misogynistic, and racist, but I don't disregard books because of any of that, I only disregarded it because I assumed it was one more book "like this" in a sea of books like this.

Now I plan to read it.

why do all those petty bourgeois types write in the same unbearable way
>not applying the lesson of Marx
>Ascension of surveillance marks the collapse of capitalism into neomonarchism
lol the retard complains about not applying Marx's lessons and then immediately claims you can transition from capitalism to some invented whateverthefuckism when the mode of production remains the same (socialized production of commodities)
not just "capitalism". it has to be capitalism + something that specifically appeals as a class to people who buy those kinds of books to serve as decoration on their bookshelves, namely to the petty bourgeoisie.
in this case the bait is good because it's truly in capitalism's nature to encroach on precious "freedoms" of the petty bourgeois, whether it be taxation, monopolies outcompeting their small businesses, big capital undercutting funding for the state programs they're parasitic upon, or surveillance. and they love to complain about it, or better yet, have someone else to complain about it for them.
but if you wrote about capitalism from the perspective of the proletariat's liberation and not from the perspective of making capitalism more agreeable to the middle classes, there would be no market for it.

>no thanks, I'm not gonna read it
>"This is outright violence!"
Herbs go in all fields.

She has a Twitter (which means I wouldn't have read it anyway) and the first posts I see are whining about based Elon conquering Twitter from the current Judeo-Dravidian rulers.

This, so much this. Silence is violence.

>(((female writer)))
Definitely not gonna happen

I think I’ll just read Foucault and Debord instead

I had to use a third party twitter viewer because I'm an adult man, so I don't have a Twitter account, but what she's saying seems reasonable. She's just saying that if you need to be saved by some billionaire narcissist "personality" from the schemes of other millionaire elites, you don't have a functional state. We should be fixing the problem of peter pan syndrome playboy overlords, not hoping for a more merciful one tomorrow.

I also hope Elon does buy Twitter just because it annoys Jews and will be funny, and no doubt she is liberal and her ideal "democracy" is some porous economic zone where everybody can decide which Michelle Obama Funco Pop they stick up their ass today, but nuance is important. She's right about this specific thing.

> socialized production of commodities
Commodity production is not capitalism, neither is socialization thereof. Capitalism is characterized by surplus-value extractions. You need to try reading the book.

>they hated him because he spoke the truth

what i don't understand is why the people who come here to avoid censorship or the limits of the mainstream www are so keen to practice it themselves (the relentless hatred of anything non-male, non-white and non-canon shuts down nearly every thread as it piles on; they clearly want it gone, otherwise they wouldn't behave in such a manner). nobody's forcing you to click on a thread about something/somebody you don't like. at least i sure don't. aside from the worst baiting/shitpost oneliners i'm not for banning/deleting, and i think all threads and all views should be allowed as long as they follow the rules but i sure wish people would practice some self control and quit spreading negativity

Attached: 1632721696087.jpg (562x562, 60.39K)

Yea I’m reading it right now about 1/3rd of the way in. I mean she’s not really a programmer or computer scientist so there’s gonna be some mistakes. The orange prose did bug me in the beginning but it gets better as the books goes along pretty good so far just wish it was a little less drawn out. Like I feel it could have been shorter without missing anything crucial

Have you read the book?

I agree, I think you're seeing a vocal minority. Yea Forums is pretty live and let live when taken in aggregate. People just get a little overzealous about promoting "racial hygiene," like excluding groups who happily exclude others when they dominate other media. For understandable reasons since we're all used to these cocksuckers tone policing us anywhere else we go.

okay chud

Attached: polcel.png (712x1262, 722.07K)

the people complaining the most about the book are the people who have not read it. I went in kind of skeptical but she does provide several case studies with Facebook and google ( the street view scandal particularly was wild ) that are worth reading about. In general I think she makes a pretty fair point that’s politically neutral for the most part. Even if you go in with some bias I’d recommend at least trying to read it.