Surveillance Capitalism

Key concepts

• Surveillance capitalism. An economic system, theorised by Shoshana Zuboff, in which the raw material of production is human behavioural data, extracted from users and commodified as prediction products sold to advertisers.
• Behavioural surplus. The excess data generated by user activity beyond what a platform needs to improve its service; this surplus is harvested, analysed, and sold to produce prediction products without users' knowledge or meaningful consent.
• Prediction products. Outputs generated from behavioural surplus data that forecast users' current, future, and anticipated behaviour with sufficient accuracy to guarantee advertising outcomes for buyers.
• Shadow text. The accumulating, algorithmically analysed record of a user's behavioural surplus — a profile more detailed and predictive than any self-knowledge the user possesses, built automatically through everyday platform interactions.
• Extraction imperative. The structural compulsion of surveillance capitalists to gather ever-greater volumes of behavioural data; platform innovations and new features are instruments of this imperative, not simply user-centred improvements.
• Behaviour modification. The active intervention by surveillance capitalists in users' lives through algorithmic nudging, emotionally targeted content, and personalised recommendations designed to engineer behaviour toward commercially profitable outcomes.
• Asymmetry of knowledge and power. The radical imbalance between what surveillance capitalist platforms know about users and what users know about the platforms; companies such as Meta and Alphabet operate with near-total opacity while accumulating granular profiles of billions of users.
• Individual sovereignty. The capacity of individuals to exercise autonomous control over their own lives, decisions, and futures; surveillance capitalism erodes sovereignty by concentrating digital authority in corporate rather than democratic hands and by eliminating the private spaces necessary for reflection and growth.

Practice exam question

Suggested response structure

1. Unpack the question. The directive verb is analyse — break down the relationships between media influence and audience agency, explain how they interact, and use evidence to support your reasoning. Note that the question requires both elements; neglecting either will cost marks.
2. Plan your evidence. List at least three named case studies — for example, Zuboff's surveillance capitalism framework, the 2024 FTC report, the Facebook Mood Experiment, or the 2017 Australian leaked document. Pair each with a specific outcome: a documented behaviour change, a regulatory consequence, or a measurable audience response.
3. Develop an argument. Establish a clear analytical position on the relationship between media influence and audience agency — for example, that surveillance capitalism has fundamentally restructured this relationship in favour of institutions. Signal the specific frameworks and evidence you will deploy.
4. Write two or three TEEL body paragraphs. Paragraph one: media influence through surveillance capitalism (behavioural surplus, behaviour modification, shadow text). Paragraph two: audience agency — its genuine possibilities and structural limits. Paragraph three (if time permits): the relationship between the two, including regulatory responses.
5. Write a conclusion. Synthesise the relationship between media influence and audience agency with a clear judgement in a concise conclusion. Do not introduce new evidence. 

Criteria

What to do

1. Use specific, contemporary examples from the last five years when analysing how media institutions collect and commodify behavioural data — higher-scoring responses draw on recent, documented case studies rather than older events from the early 2000s or earlier. (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
2. Identify globalised media institutions by their specific names — Meta, Alphabet, TikTok, Netflix — rather than referring to them by generic categories such as "social media" or "tech companies". (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
3. Support all claims with relevant, detailed, specific and precise examples or evidence rather than relying on general or vague references — this applies when discussing data harvesting, behavioural modification, audience agency, and ethical and legal issues. (2024 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
4. Explain how and why institutions operate as they do — for example, why platforms maximise engagement to generate behavioural surplus — not merely list their practices. (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)

What to avoid

• Do not define surveillance capitalism in your opening sentence without immediately connecting it to both elements of the question. The 2024 question requires analysis of media influence and audience agency; responses that treat only one element will be penalised regardless of the quality of that analysis. (2024 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not treat Zuboff's theory as evidence in itself. Communication theories and theoretical frameworks are "analytical tools to interpret the evidence," not substitutes for named case studies or documented outcomes. (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not rely on anecdotal or vague evidence — for example, "many users feel their data is being collected." Use specific named case studies, published research findings, or documented regulatory actions. (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not list examples without analytical integration. Describing the Cambridge Analytica scandal without connecting it to behavioural surplus, prediction products, or the power asymmetry in the question will not score well. (2024 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not treat audience agency as a separate, appended section. The question requires a balanced evaluation; agency must be woven into the argument as qualification or counter-evidence, not listed after the main argument is complete. (2024 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not use non-contemporary examples as primary evidence. Surveillance capitalism is a current phenomenon; references to pre-digital media influence without explicit connection to the digital platform era will be assessed as insufficiently contemporary. (2025 VCE Media Examiner's Report)
• Do not open any paragraph with a restatement of the topic or concept heading — for example, "Surveillance capitalism is a form of capitalism in which…" Each paragraph should begin with a claim that advances the evaluative argument. (2024 VCE Media Examiner's Report)

Sample response

Marking guide

• 15–13 marks. Sophisticated evaluation with a sustained, specific evaluative position.
  • Thesis takes a clear stance on the claim and is maintained across all paragraphs; conclusion resolves the argument rather than restating the question.
  • At least three named, specific pieces of evidence (platform, case study, documented research) are integrated analytically, with explicit connections drawn between them.
  • VCE Media terminology — surveillance capitalism, behavioural surplus, prediction products, shadow text, behaviour modification, audience agency — is deployed precisely as analytical tools, not definitions.
  • A counter-position (e.g. regulatory intervention, audience resistance, data literacy) is acknowledged and critically assessed, demonstrating evaluative rather than one-sided argument.
  • The response synthesises evidence across paragraphs rather than listing examples; individual pieces of evidence are connected to broader claims about power, influence, or sovereignty.
• 12–10 marks. Well-developed evaluation with specific evidence and mostly sustained argument.
  • A clear evaluative position is established but may not be fully sustained — one or more paragraphs may slide into description or listing.
  • At least two named pieces of evidence are used; one may be analytically underdeveloped or described rather than integrated.
  • VCE terminology is present and mostly accurate, though some terms may be used without full analytical integration — for example, surveillance capitalism is defined but not deployed to explain a consequence.
  • Audience agency is addressed but may be treated as a separate section rather than woven into the evaluative argument.
  • A counter-position may be acknowledged but not fully engaged or assessed.
• 9–7 marks. Adequate response with relevant knowledge and some analytical engagement.
  • An evaluative position is present but may be implicit or inconsistently maintained.
  • One or two examples are used with some specificity; evidence may lack precision (for example, "social media platforms" rather than named platforms) or may not be genuinely contemporary.
  • Some VCE Media terminology is used but may be inconsistently applied or partially inaccurate.
  • The response addresses either media influence or audience agency with more depth than the other, creating an imbalance.
  • Limited synthesis between pieces of evidence; ideas are developed within paragraphs but not connected across the response.
• 6–4 marks. Limited response with basic relevant knowledge and mainly descriptive treatment.
  • A position may be stated but is not developed; the response tends toward description of surveillance capitalism rather than evaluation of the claim.
  • Examples, if present, are vague or not demonstrably contemporary — for example, references to pre-digital media influence without connection to the digital platform era.
  • VCE terminology is present in isolated instances but is not used analytically or is incorrectly applied.
  • The response addresses one element of the question but neglects the other, or conflates media influence with audience agency.
  • No counter-position is considered.
• 3–1 marks. Minimal response with very limited relevant knowledge.
  • Some relevant content is present but the response does not demonstrate understanding of surveillance capitalism as a specific concept or theoretical framework.
  • Evidence, if any, is generic and anecdotal; no named platforms, institutions, or case studies are cited with sufficient specificity.
  • VCE Media terminology is absent or used incorrectly.
  • The response does not address the evaluative demand of the question; it describes or narrates rather than argues.