Paying users for their data would not remedy the harms of continuous surveillance

Evidence

Our argument starts out more pessimistically, but we also believe more realistically, from the current capitalist drive to treat the human activities that generate data as raw material for production. Being paid for one’s data would, in any case, do nothing to address the damage done by the continuous surveillance on which data collection is built (see chapter 5). — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 780

Categorization

• XREF: Directly counters the ‘data as labor, pay for it’ proposals of Posner & Weyl and Lanier — a useful contrast against the attention/surveillance schools’ framing of user exploitation as a labor issue. — connects to: General data-protection frameworks cannot challenge extractive data economies. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 555; The key platform struggle is denaturalizing data abstraction, not securing payment for data — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 781; Paying users for their data would legitimate rather than fix behavioral extraction — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 299 (+2 more)
• SEED: Angle possibility: ‘Why paying people for their data won’t end surveillance’ — a rebuttal-lite piece to Radical Markets-style proposals.

Broader Connections

• Paying users for their data would legitimate rather than fix behavioral extraction #expands (0.92) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 299
• Privacy protections are structurally incompatible with surveillance capitalism’s accumulation logic #expands (0.75) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 601
• Opting out of tracking legitimizes surveillance rather than challenging it #complicates (0.72) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1095