Datafied labor regimes resemble slavery only in surveillance continuity, not in status

Evidence

We are not claiming datafied labor relations (or data relations) are slavery; such hyperbole would be offensive. We are making a comparison in terms of the degree and continuity of surveillance that is normal in various regimes of labor. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 715

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Clarifies the precise scope of the slavery-comparison the authors intend: they compare degree and continuity of surveillance, explicitly rejecting any claim that datafied labor relations are slavery.
  • XREF: Connects to a recurring methodological caution in critical theory: using historical analogies (slavery, colonialism) as structural comparison rather than identity. Echoes how other left critiques avoid romanticizing or hyperbolically equating present exploitation with past forms. — connects to: Slavery and surveillance data relations differ in kind yet share a crucial structural commonality — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 486; Slavery’s management rationalities seeded the data-optimization mindset of modern capitalism — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 43; Data exploitation resembles capitalism’s free ride on uncommodified life, not factory labor — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 326 (+2 more)

Broader Connections