Occupied Lives

long note platform society occupation

The platform does not need to stop activity. It only needs to keep activity circulating.

00 Occupation as a form

The most powerful form of platform control may not be persuasion. It may be occupation.

Not occupation in the military sense, but occupation in the ordinary sense: the filling of life with things to do. Order food. Deliver food. Scroll the feed. Watch the next clip. Check the courier map. Reply to a comment. Chase a discount. Refresh a dashboard. Adjust a thumbnail. Take another order. Join another argument. Buy a small comfort. Wait for the algorithm to notice.

None of this looks like domination at first. It looks like life becoming more manageable.

That is why platform convenience is often described as the reduction of friction. The description is accurate, but too small. It explains why platforms are useful. It does not explain why they become socially consequential. The deeper question is what happens when daily life is increasingly organized as a chain of immediate needs, quick responses, small rewards, and recurring exhaustion.

Occupation names the process by which platforms fill everyday time with actionable loops. Dissipation names the effect by which this activity fails to accumulate into autonomous capacity or durable collective power.

A society does not need to eliminate human energy in order to stabilize itself. It can absorb that energy. It can route time into delivery work, short videos, games, livestreams, comment wars, platform entrepreneurship, discount hunting, fandom, ranking systems, side hustles, and personalized entertainment. People remain active, stimulated, expressive, and busy. Yet much of that activity is broken into forms that are easy to measure, monetize, and repeat, but hard to build upon.

This essay argues that platformized convenience is not only a smoother service layer. It is a system for organizing everyday occupation. It fills life with solvable micro-needs and measurable micro-actions. In doing so, it can dissipate social energy: not by suppressing activity, but by formatting activity into loops that rarely become self-development, durable association, or collective power.

The word “dissipation” is used here as a social metaphor. It does not mean that human life obeys a physical law. It points to a pattern: energy that might otherwise become study, craft, friendship, political association, public presence, artistic risk, mutual aid, or institutional invention is broken into smaller circuits of consumption, labor, affect, and engagement. Nothing simply disappears. It circulates. But circulation is not the same as development.

This argument does not deny that platforms can enable connection, creativity, income, and mobilization. They can. Digital media have supported protest, subcultures, diasporas, learning networks, and alternative publics. The point is narrower: platformized life increasingly organizes the terms on which energy becomes usable. Some actions are made immediate, repeatable, and rewarding. Others require time, trust, memory, risk, and organization. Those slower capacities are precisely the ones most easily weakened when life is continuously occupied.

01 Convenience is real, but not innocent

A serious critique of platform convenience has to begin by admitting that convenience is real.

Platforms solve practical problems. A delivery app reduces the work of finding food. A ride-hailing app reduces the uncertainty of finding transport. A marketplace reduces the difficulty of comparing products. A payment app reduces the steps required to complete a transaction. A recommendation feed reduces the effort of deciding what to watch next. A short-video platform offers immediate relief from boredom. A game gives structure, competition, reward, and social contact.

These are not illusions. People return to platforms because platforms answer real needs. They answer hunger, fatigue, loneliness, impatience, insecurity, social comparison, the desire for income, the desire for recognition, and the desire to feel that one is still moving.

But answering needs is also a way of shaping them.

The platform does not merely satisfy demand after demand appears. It trains the rhythm through which demand is felt. Food should arrive quickly. Entertainment should begin instantly. Payment should disappear into the background. Contact should remain continuous. Recognition should be numerical. Waiting should become a tracking screen. Boredom should become a feed. Loneliness should become mediated companionship. Anger should become engagement. Economic anxiety should become platform work.

This is where convenience becomes political. Not because every convenient service is oppressive, but because repeated convenience can become dependency, and dependency can become occupation. The more life is mediated through platforms, the more platforms define how needs appear, how quickly they should be answered, what action should follow, and what form of reward will bring the user, worker, merchant, or creator back.

Convenience is therefore not only a smoother path through life. It is a way of scripting life into manageable units.

02 Horizontal life, centralized interfaces

Before platforms became default gateways, much of everyday coordination passed through looser and more horizontal arrangements: streets, shops, schools, workplaces, neighborhood relations, informal markets, clubs, public squares, hobby groups, friends of friends, and chance encounters. These spaces were unequal, inefficient, exclusionary, and often inconvenient. They were not romantic worlds of freedom. But coordination was distributed across many places and relations.

Platformization changes this distribution.

The important transformation is not that food, shopping, entertainment, payment, and communication move “online.” That is too shallow. The deeper shift is that formerly dispersed activities are routed through centralized interfaces. The platform becomes the place where options appear, payments clear, reputations accumulate, workers are dispatched, creators become visible, complaints are processed, and future choices are predicted.

In platform studies, this belongs to the broader process of platformization: the penetration of platform infrastructures, economic models, governance frameworks, and data practices into different sectors of life. In everyday terms, it means that more of life begins from the same kinds of gates.

A restaurant is no longer only a place in a neighborhood. It becomes a ranked object inside a delivery interface. A courier is no longer only a worker moving through a city. He becomes a node in a dispatch system. A video is no longer only a cultural object. It becomes a unit in a retention sequence. A hobby is no longer only a practice. It can become a content niche. A complaint is no longer only speech. It becomes a ticket, a review, a moderation case, or a metric.

This is the emergence of interface-mediated social life.

The phrase does not mean that platforms control everything. It means that more actions pass through designed entry points where they become searchable, rankable, payable, trackable, recommendable, and governable. The interface is not just a screen. It is an organized passage point.

The political question is therefore not only who owns the platform. It is what happens when the ordinary entrances to life are concentrated.

03 The filling of needs

A platformized society does not simply reduce friction. It fills life with needs that can be immediately acted upon.

This is where the older language of “friction” reaches its limit. Friction explains why something becomes easier or harder. The deeper issue is saturation. Platforms multiply small tasks, small desires, small opportunities, small anxieties, and small rewards until life becomes densely occupied.

The user is not only freed from inconvenience. The user is continuously addressed.

There is always something to order, watch, click, compare, track, collect, answer, optimize, buy, sell, post, edit, check, or upgrade. The platform does not need a grand commitment. It asks for one more action. One more scroll. One more response. One more order. One more delivery. One more upload. One more match. One more night of fragmented attention.

Jonathan Crary’s critique of 24/7 capitalism is useful here. In a 24/7 world, the boundaries between work, consumption, attention, and surveillance become harder to hold. The system does not merely extend working time. It extends availability.

Platform convenience intensifies this condition by turning availability into a way of life. The phone is not only a tool used at chosen moments. It becomes the environment through which needs appear. Hunger appears as delivery. Boredom appears as feed. Economic pressure appears as gig work. Ambition appears as content production. Frustration appears as argument. Desire appears as shopping. Isolation appears as mediated companionship.

A person can feel active all day while barely moving toward any durable capacity.

This is the core problem. Platformized life does not necessarily produce passivity. It can produce hyperactivity without development.

04 Work as occupation

The same logic applies to labor.

Gig platforms do not merely offer flexible work. They occupy economic anxiety. They translate insecurity into immediately available tasks: accept the order, follow the route, complete the delivery, maintain the rating, wait for the next request. For people facing unemployment, underemployment, debt, migration pressure, weak bargaining power, or blocked mobility, platform work can be a necessary survival route. It offers income, entry, and a sense of movement.

That is precisely why it matters.

Platform labor absorbs time that might otherwise appear as unemployment, frustration, public anger, or demand for institutional change. It does not solve the structural causes of insecurity. It converts insecurity into task-based availability.

Research on algorithmic management shows that platform work is not unmanaged simply because workers lack a traditional boss. Dispatch systems, ratings, incentives, penalties, timing metrics, route calculations, and customer feedback create a dispersed but powerful management regime. The worker may choose when to log in, but once inside the system, the rhythm of work is shaped by algorithmic allocation and performance pressure.

This matters beyond labor policy. Platform work is also a social absorption mechanism. It gives blocked time a task form. It makes people individually responsible for remaining active. It converts structural scarcity into personal optimization. If one is tired, one should work smarter. If one earns little, one should choose better hours. If one receives fewer orders, one should understand the system. Failure becomes individualized inside an interface that presents itself as neutral.

In this sense, platform work does not merely extract labor. It organizes frustration into motion.

The worker is not idle. The worker is busy. The worker is not collectively unemployed. The worker is individually waiting for the next task.

05 Entertainment as occupation

Entertainment platforms fill a different kind of time: boredom, loneliness, anger, desire, envy, fantasy, and restlessness.

Short video, games, livestreams, forums, fandom spaces, social commerce, recommendation feeds, and comment sections provide real pleasures. They offer humor, intimacy, recognition, competition, shared language, aesthetic experience, and escape. A serious critique should not treat these pleasures as fake. People need relief. People need play. People need fantasy.

The problem is what happens when entertainment becomes the dominant infrastructure for processing social energy.

A lonely person can watch a livestream. A bored person can scroll for hours. An angry person can join a comment war. A socially powerless person can win in a game, dominate a thread, gain symbolic status, or participate in a fandom battle. A person with blocked prospects can become a micro-creator, reseller, streamer, grinder, moderator, fan account, or platform entrepreneur. Each path offers agency at the level of the interface.

affective loop At scale, however, this produces a society in which enormous quantities of affect are captured in loops that rarely require durable institution-building.

Jodi Dean’s concept of communicative capitalism helps explain this pattern. In communicative capitalism, expression, participation, critique, and affect do not necessarily threaten the system. They can become part of its circulation. Speech is not silenced; it is captured as communicative activity. The value lies less in what is collectively achieved than in the continuous circulation of messages, reactions, and attachments.

Zizi Papacharissi’s work on affective publics adds an important qualification. Digital platforms can allow people to feel their way into politics and shared events. Networked affect can produce symbolic power and help people enter public narratives. But affective engagement can also remain trapped in loops of intensity, expression, and repetition. Feeling together is not the same as building together.

This distinction is crucial. A platform society may be loud, emotional, expressive, and politically charged while still weak in durable collective capacity. It may generate storms of attention without institutions, outrage without strategy, belonging without responsibility, and symbolic participation without sustained power.

The result is not depoliticization in the sense that people stop caring. It is the conversion of political and social energy into platform-compatible forms of expression.

06 Private satisfaction, collective weakness

The central asymmetry can now be stated clearly: platformized convenience lowers the threshold for private satisfaction while often raising the threshold for durable collective life.

It becomes easier to order food than to cook with others. Easier to scroll than to read slowly. Easier to argue than to organize. Easier to join a fandom battle than to build a civic association. Easier to take gig work than to fight for stable labor institutions. Easier to express anger than to maintain a political organization. Easier to consume identity than to form character. Easier to feel connected than to become accountable to real people over time.

The environment, rather than individual moral weakness, makes some actions immediate and others costly.

Self-development requires uninterrupted time, boredom, discipline, slow feedback, failure, and memory. Friendship requires repeated presence and mutual obligation. Art requires waste, risk, and non-instrumental attention. Political organization requires trust, coordination, conflict, and endurance. Public life requires spaces where people are not only users, customers, workers, fans, or content producers.

Platform life tends to weaken these conditions by filling the gaps from which they grow.

Boredom becomes feed time. Rest becomes entertainment time. Anxiety becomes shopping time. Economic pressure becomes gig time. Anger becomes comment time. Ambition becomes optimization time. Desire becomes transaction time. Even self-improvement becomes content, metrics, productivity tools, and personal branding.

The person is not prevented from developing. The person is continuously diverted into smaller satisfactions and smaller obligations.

This is why the metaphor of a “convenience prison” is powerful if used carefully. It should not mean that people are literally locked in or that convenience is inherently evil. It means that the walls are made of answered needs. The prison works not by denying everything, but by providing enough immediate pathways that harder, slower, more autonomous pathways lose practical force.

The door is open, but the outside requires time one no longer has.

07 De-diversification of life

A society becomes plural not simply because many options are visible. It becomes plural when people have the time, capacity, and institutional room to develop different forms of life.

Platformized convenience can create the appearance of diversity while narrowing the conditions of genuine plurality. The content may be abundant: countless videos, creators, products, restaurants, opinions, fandoms, games, and lifestyles. Yet abundance at the level of content can coexist with narrowing at the level of form. Different things are produced, but they are increasingly produced for similar rhythms: retention, visibility, growth, conversion, display, and monetization.

Creators provide the clearest example. Two creators may have completely different aesthetics, politics, humor, or expertise. Once their work becomes platform-dependent, however, both must ask similar questions: will the opening seconds retain attention, will the thumbnail travel, will the upload schedule satisfy the system, will the format be legible to recommendation, will the metrics justify continuing? Difference survives, but it is routed through the same growth grammar.

Lifestyle diversity is shaped in a similar way. A minimalist, a fitness enthusiast, a luxury shopper, a digital nomad, a cooking hobbyist, and a political commentator may appear to embody radically different lives. Yet once these lives are organized through platforms, each can become a personal brand, a display system, a monetizable niche, and a metric-bearing identity. The visible lifestyle differs; the underlying demand to perform, package, optimize, and remain present becomes similar.

Even hobby communities are changed by this pressure. A group formed around photography, cooking, gaming, reading, or local exploration may begin as a shared practice. Once platform visibility becomes important, the practice is pushed toward what can be posted, compared, sold, ranked, recommended, or turned into growth. The hobby does not disappear. It becomes more legible to the platform, and therefore more available to the same pressures of display and expansion.

This is why a platform society can be culturally abundant and existentially narrow.

The issue is not uniformity at the level of content. It is homogenization at the level of life-form. People may consume different things while living under the same tempo: always available, always responsive, always optimizing, always entertained, always comparing, always performing some version of the self. Workers may perform different tasks while being managed through similar dashboards and ratings. Merchants may sell different goods while depending on similar visibility systems.

This is a stronger problem than filter bubbles or addiction. The issue is not merely that people see biased information or spend too much time online. The issue is that the architecture of everyday life becomes less capable of supporting alternative rhythms. Slow study, non-optimized friendship, local association, craft, political patience, spiritual discipline, wandering, and unproductive thought all become harder to sustain when the environment constantly offers a more immediate use for time.

In this sense, platform convenience can contribute to the de-diversification of life. It multiplies choices inside the interface while reducing the conditions for developing lives outside its dominant rhythms.

08 Interface power without closure

Modern power does not need to begin by occupying belief. It can begin by occupying entrances.

This is why interface power matters. The politically important object is not only what people think, but how they buy, pay, move, eat, work, search, watch, date, complain, relax, and seek recognition. When these activities pass through concentrated gateways, power can operate before ideology becomes explicit.

Foucault’s concept of governmentality is useful here because it directs attention to the shaping of conduct rather than only the issuing of commands. Deleuze’s “societies of control” also remain relevant: power increasingly works through continuous modulation, access, codes, and flexible environments rather than only through enclosed institutions. Michael Mann’s idea of infrastructural power helps explain why the capacity to penetrate and coordinate social life can matter as much as overt coercion.

Platforms extend these problems into everyday interfaces. They make action legible and adjustable. They do not need to command every user. They need to structure the default paths.

The platform can recommend rather than order. Rank rather than ban. Nudge rather than command. Delay rather than refuse. Demonitize rather than censor. Shadow-reduce rather than prohibit. Subsidize one behavior and make another inconvenient. Make one path seamless and another path administratively exhausting.

This is softer than direct repression, but it is not weak. It can be more durable because it appears as ordinary usability.

The most powerful interface is one that does not feel political. It feels like the way life works.

09 An intensified case

China is not the only society shaped by platformized convenience. But it is one of the clearest intensified cases.

Several conditions converge there: mobile-first internet adoption, dense urban logistics, highly developed food delivery, mobile payment, super-app ecosystems, short-video platforms, livestreaming commerce, algorithmic recommendation, platform-mediated employment, real-name infrastructures, and a party-state with strong incentives to manage public opinion, social mobilization, labor absorption, and everyday conduct.

The key point is not that platforms in China were invented as instruments of control. That would be too simple. Many began as commercial services solving real problems: payment, communication, shopping, entertainment, logistics, and local services. The more important process is functional absorption. Once these platforms became central to everyday life, their capacities became politically legible. They could route attention, absorb labor, structure entertainment, mediate payment, monitor flows, regulate visibility, and provide channels for state intervention.

This is why the Chinese case should be understood through state-platform entanglement rather than a crude opposition between market and state. The platformization of Chinese society has been described by de Kloet, Poell, Zeng, and Chow as a transformation involving infrastructure, governance, and practice. Plantin and de Seta’s analysis of WeChat as infrastructure similarly shows how a platform can become a general environment for communication, payment, services, and governance under conditions shaped by cyber-sovereignty.

The regulatory language around Chinese recommendation algorithms makes the political stakes explicit. China’s algorithm filing regime pays special attention to systems with “public opinion properties” or “social mobilization capabilities.” That phrase is revealing. It shows that the state does not only care about content as speech. It cares about the systems that can organize attention, visibility, coordination, and mobilization.

Food delivery, short video, livestreaming, gaming, e-commerce, and mobile payment each play multiple roles. They are industries, conveniences, data systems, employment buffers, entertainment infrastructures, affective outlets, and governance-relevant interfaces. They fill needs and occupy time. They help people live, work, consume, and endure. They also reduce the likelihood that surplus energy will accumulate outside managed channels.

In this sense, this case shows a high-intensity version of a broader platform tendency: the conversion of social energy into interface activity.

The difference is institutional depth. In liberal market settings, this tendency is often driven primarily by advertising, data extraction, competition, and ecosystem lock-in. In China, those commercial logics intersect more directly with state priorities: stability maintenance, public-opinion management, labor absorption, data governance, youth regulation, and the control of mobilization. The result is a society in which the infrastructure of convenience is unusually compatible with the infrastructure of governance.

10 Stability through occupation

A traditional image of social control emphasizes prohibition: what cannot be said, where one cannot go, what one cannot organize. That image remains important, especially in authoritarian settings. Platformized convenience points to another mechanism: stabilization through occupation.

A person whose day is filled by tasks, feeds, deliveries, games, rankings, streams, payments, side hustles, and emotional loops is not necessarily politically loyal. Loyalty may be irrelevant. The person is busy. The person is tired. The person has outlets. The person has small satisfactions. The person has individualized problems to solve. Under these conditions, the person has less uninterrupted time in which larger questions can gather force.

This does not eliminate dissent. It changes the conditions under which dissent can accumulate.

Anger can appear constantly but dissipate quickly. Critique can circulate without organization. Humor can express refusal while remaining monetizable. Cynicism can become a style rather than a strategy. Complaint can become engagement. Even despair can become content.

Under certain institutional conditions, stabilization may not require most people to believe in the system. It may only require enough people to remain occupied by immediate needs and short cycles of affective discharge.

The mechanism is lower-grade, continuous stabilization. It works less by producing conviction than by reducing the time, space, and continuity through which discontent might become durable.

The most effective order is not necessarily one in which everyone is convinced. It may be one in which everyone is always doing something else.

11 The remaining role of friction

Friction still matters, but it should not be the center of the argument.

The useful point is limited: platforms lower the friction of some actions while preserving or increasing the friction of others. They make consumption, entertainment, payment, and individualized expression easier. They often leave organization, exit, autonomy, slow development, and public association harder.

But friction is only a mechanism. The larger phenomenon is occupation.

A society does not become stable merely because some tasks become easier. It becomes stable when the easier tasks fill the time, attention, and desire that might otherwise support alternative forms of life. The political meaning of convenience lies not in smoothness itself, but in what smoothness makes people available for — and unavailable for.

The important question is therefore not “who bears the friction?” but “what happens to human capacity when life is filled by platform-addressed needs?”

Do people have time to develop skills that are not immediately monetizable? Do they have spaces to form relations not mediated by metrics? Do they have enough boredom to think? Enough stability to organize? Enough privacy to experiment? Enough public space to encounter others without being sorted into consumer, worker, user, fan, or target?

If the answer is increasingly no, then the political problem is not only platform dependency. It is the shrinking of autonomous life.

12 Filled lives, weakened worlds

Platformized convenience is not just about making life easier. It is about making life continuously addressable.

It fills hunger with delivery, boredom with feeds, anxiety with tasks, loneliness with streams, anger with comments, ambition with metrics, insecurity with gig work, and desire with transactions. It offers real relief, real pleasure, real income, and real connection. That is why it works.

But a life can be filled and still be diminished.

A society can become more convenient while its people lose time to develop themselves. It can become more expressive while losing durable institutions. It can become more connected while weakening responsibility to concrete others. It can become more entertaining while losing the capacity for boredom, reflection, and refusal. It can become more active while dissipating the energy needed for collective power.

The deepest politics of platform convenience is therefore not the politics of friction alone. It is the politics of occupation: who fills the day, who defines the need, who supplies the next action, who captures the affect, who owns the gateway, and who benefits when life becomes too occupied to become otherwise.

The danger is not that platforms make people do nothing.

The danger is that they make people endlessly do something — and leave them with too little time, space, and strength to become anything else.

References and further reading

Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 739–768.

Bishop, Sophie. 2019. “Managing Visibility on YouTube through Algorithmic Gossip.” New Media & Society 21(11–12): 2589–2606.

Bucher, Taina. 2012. “Want to Be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook.” New Media & Society 14(7): 1164–1180.

Chen, Julie Yujie, and Ping Sun. 2023. Digital Labour Platforms and National Employment Policies in China: Studying the Case of Food Delivery Platforms. ILO Working Paper 99. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

Crary, Jonathan. 2013. 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. London: Verso.

de Kloet, Jeroen, Thomas Poell, Guohua Zeng, and Yiu Fai Chow. 2019. “The Platformization of Chinese Society: Infrastructure, Governance, and Practice.” Chinese Journal of Communication 12(3): 249–256.

Dean, Jodi. 2010. Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. Cambridge: Polity.

Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October 59: 3–7.

Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Governmentality.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gillespie, Tarleton. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Huang, Hui. 2022. “Algorithmic Management in Food-Delivery Platform Economy in China.” New Technology, Work and Employment 38(2).

Kellogg, Katherine C., Melissa A. Valentine, and Angèle Christin. 2020. “Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control.” Academy of Management Annals 14(1): 366–410.

Mann, Michael. 1984. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” European Journal of Sociology 25(2): 185–213.

Nieborg, David B., and Thomas Poell. 2018. “The Platformization of Cultural Production.” New Media & Society 20(11): 4275–4292.

Papacharissi, Zizi. 2015. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plantin, Jean-Christophe, and Gabriele de Seta. 2019. “WeChat as Infrastructure: The Techno-Nationalist Shaping of Chinese Digital Platforms.” Chinese Journal of Communication 12(3): 257–273.

Poell, Thomas, David B. Nieborg, and José van Dijck. 2019. “Platformisation.” Internet Policy Review 8(4).

Rolf, Steve, and Seth Schindler. 2025. State Platform Capitalism: The United States, China, and the Global Battle for Digital Supremacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosa, Hartmut. 2013. Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sheehan, Matt. 2024. “Tracing the Roots of China’s AI Regulations.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Sheehan, Matt, and Sharon Du. 2022. “What China’s Algorithm Registry Reveals about AI Governance.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

van Dijck, José, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Doorn, Niels. 2017. “Platform Labor: On the Gendered and Racialized Exploitation of Low-Income Service Work in the On-Demand Economy.” Information, Communication & Society 20(6): 898–914.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs.