Perhaps surveillance capitalism is zero-sum. There's only so much buying power, and at least in the US, consumers are mostly spent out. In that situation, advertising just moves demand around; it does not increase it. So all this consumer data-mining and targeting may be a net lose, just a cost imposed by the market on all the companies using it.
> consumer data-mining and targeting may be a net lose
It is at net lose.
And our current society's concept of ever-increasing growth, based on ever-increasing consumption (aka "the latest iPhone is out, you must buy that now"), is very obviously not sustainable any longer. It was sustainable during the period when our resources seemed "unlimited" to us.
It is however not a lose to Google & Co. who continually gain power over governments all over the World.
It can definitely be a loss for the consumers who are being manipulated. If through advertising they are convinced to spend $100 on a doodad or device rather than $100 on something that will improve their long-term well-being, or not spending that $100 at all, they lose. Who wins? Advertisers. Search engines. Producers. All the while, each of them convincing themselves that they're doing such a great job meeting the needs of consumers.
Selling people chocolate might not be evil, but a sustained multi-year billion dollar campaign to put chocolate into the consciousness of the populace and have it normalized as part of a staple diet is borderline.
Just wait until they start selling your behavioral data for background checks, health insurance and credit ratings. Suddenly you are shut out of things and you don't even know why.
