In Defense of Data‑Driven Tech

In many contemporary debates, “surveillance capitalism” often serves as a convenient culprit, being blamed for political decline, mental health crises, and erosion of privacy. However, in his paper “In Defense of Surveillance Capitalism,” Peter Königs argues that this portrayal is empirically fragile and normatively one-sided. As he puts it:

“Many critical discussions of surveillance capitalism suffer from two defects. They often exaggerate the negative aspects of surveillance capitalism, and they fail to acknowledge its positive aspects.”

A Critique of a Critique

The paper begins by clarifying the meaning of “surveillance capitalism.” It focuses on companies such as Google, Meta, YouTube, and X, which offer free digital services funded by collecting data and selling advertising. Königs notes that the term “surveillance capitalism” is misleading because if surveillance is defined as monitoring to enforce norms or detect wrongdoing, then most of what these firms do — profiling users to show them relevant ads — does not qualify as surveillance. He explains:

“We usually do not speak of surveillance unless the monitoring or data-collecting serves the purpose of verifying that people comply with certain normative expectations, such as laws, moral norms, orders, etc.”

Similarly, labeling the economy as a new “mutation” of capitalism dominated by these practices exaggerates their influence, considering data-driven advertising remains a relatively small sector. Königs therefore treats “surveillance capitalism” primarily as a label for a specific business model (data-funded, advertising-supported services), not as a fundamentally new economic order.