Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Breckenridge (2020)
Capitalism without surveillanceDevelopment and Change, 51
Fuchs (2012)
Google capitalismtripleC: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10
Vimalkumar (2021)
‘Okay Google, what about my privacy?’: User’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistantsComputers in Human Behavior, 120
West (2019)
Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacyBusiness & Society, 58
Eberlein (2005)
Beyond delegation: transnational regulatory regimes and the EU regulatory stateJournal of European Public Policy, 12
Foster (2014)
Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the military-industrial complex, and the digital ageMonthly Review, 66
Andrew (2021)
The General Data Protection Regulation in the age of surveillance capitalismJournal of Business Ethics, 168
Houser (2018)
GDPR: The end of Google and Facebook or a new paradigm in data privacyRich. JL & Tech., 25
Bennett (2001)
Cookies, web bugs, webcams and cue cats: Patterns of surveillance on the world wide webEthics and Information Technology, 3
Truong (2021)
Privacy preservation in federated learning: An insightful survey from the GDPR perspectiveComputers & Security, 110
Yeung (2017)
‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by designInformation, Communication & Society, 20
Post (2017)
Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphereDuke LJ, 67
Bennett (2018)
The European General Data Protection Regulation: An instrument for the globalization of privacy standardsInformation Polity, 23
Zarsky (2016)
Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big dataSeton Hall L. Rev., 47
Pridmore (2011)
Marketing and the rise of commercial consumer surveillanceSurveillance & Society, 8
Terranova (2000)
Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economySocial Text, 18
Zuboff (2015)
Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information CivilizationJournal of Information Technology, 30
Winseck (2020)
Vampire squids, ‘the broken internet’ and platform regulationJournal of Digital Media & Policy, 11
Radice (2000)
Globalization and national capitalisms: Theorizing convergence and differentiationReview of International Political Economy, 7
Gillespie (2010)
The Politics of “Platforms”New Media & Society, 12
Geradin (2021)
Google as a de facto privacy regulator: Analysing the Privacy Sandbox from an antitrust perspectiveEuropean Competition Journal, 17
Andrejevic (2007)
Surveillance in the digital enclosureThe Communication Review, 10
Veale (2021)
Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act – Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approachComputer Law Review International, 22
Callon (2005)
Peripheral vision: Economic markets as calculative collective devicesOrganization Studies, 26
Li (2019)
The Impact of GDPR on Global Technology DevelopmentJournal of Global Information Technology Management, 22
Van Dijck (2014)
Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideologySurveillance & Society, 12
Dal Bó (2006)
Regulatory capture: A reviewOxford Review of Economic Policy, 22
Murakami Wood (2013)
Brandscapes of control? Surveillance, marketing and the co-construction of subjectivity and space in neo-liberal capitalismMarketing Theory, 13
This paper analyzes the short history of Google’s AI-driven data collation and marketing technology, Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC), which was designed to replace third-party cookies, the technology at the heart of “surveillance capitalism.” Using publicly available data such as patents, investor calls, public filings, github accounts, and presentations, this paper explores FLoCs and its immediate replacements, The Topics API and FLEDGE, and contests claims that Google’s new marketing technologies are both ‘privacy-centric’ and as effective as surveillance-driven targeted advertising. The paper argues that Google’s parent company, Alphabet is starting on a path away from being an advertising and information company to being an “AI-first” company, and sees FLoC as one (mis)step on this path. The paper shows how an combination of interacting factors – corporate ideology, market forces, regulatory responses, and internal cultural conflict – are driving this transformation, but concludes that surveillance will continue to be at the heart of any AI-first economy.
Information Polity – IOS Press
Published: Jul 26, 2022
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.