How can we help?

1. Slides, attached below.
2. Students can create their own discussion around the central question, or you can clone and use this ready-made example.
3. Watch the video The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism | Mark Weinstein | TEDxIVC (9 minutes)  before sharing with students.

Present the guiding question: “Are human sciences being used to understand us — or to control us?”

Recap Lessons 1–2:

• Lesson 1: Debate on ethics as limitation vs. strength.
• Lesson 2: Case studies of past ethical failures (Tuskegee, Stanford, Cambridge Analytica, AI bias).
• Link: This lesson moves to the contemporary challenge — how human sciences drive surveillance capitalism.

Listening Task

Students watch the video: The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism | Mark Weinstein | TEDxIVC. Students should actively map the speaker’s key arguments, counterarguments, and ethical claims about surveillance capitalism and human sciences.

Key Points to Listen For:

• How do tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) use human sciences (psychology, data science, behavioral economics) to track and manipulate behavior?
• What examples show how our personal data is collected, packaged, and sold?
• How do corporations deliberately design addictive systems (e.g., phone checking, polarizing content) to maximize engagement and profit?
• What are the political and social consequences (e.g., Cambridge Analytica, China’s social credit system)?
• Who benefits from this use of human sciences, and who is harmed?
• What solutions or actions does the speaker suggest for reclaiming privacy and autonomy?

Note-Taking Framework:

• Main Arguments:
  • Surveillance capitalism uses human sciences to convert behavior into data, monetizing privacy.
  • Corporations wield enormous power to manipulate emotions, decisions, and even democracy.
  • Privacy and autonomy are fundamental rights under threat; responsibility for protecting them is unclear.
• Supporting Examples:
  • Facebook and Google profiting more from spying than from serving users.
  • Cambridge Analytica using psychological profiles to sway elections.
  • China’s Social Credit System punishing citizens for “undesirable” behavior.
  • Devices like Alexa, smart TVs, and Fitbits transmitting private information.
  • Polarizing content on social media served deliberately to increase engagement.
• Counterarguments / Critical Questions:
  • Are human sciences themselves the problem, or the way corporations and governments exploit them?
  • Can regulation or universal ethical codes realistically restrain surveillance capitalism?
  • Do individuals have enough power to resist, or is collective/global action required?
  • From a perspective lens: is surveillance always unethical, or can it sometimes serve security and order (e.g., China)?
  • Who holds ultimate responsibility — the corporations designing the systems, the governments regulating them, or the users participating in them?

Kialo Discussion:

In small groups, students create a new Kialo discussion around the guiding question: “Does ethical responsibility strengthen or weaken human sciences in the age of surveillance capitalism?”

Alternatively, if students need more structure, clone and share this ready-made discussion based on the thesis below, and use the suggested claims as prompts.

Students should use their listening analysis to select the strongest arguments.

They should add these to the Kialo discussion as arguments, counterarguments, examples, and evaluations.

Encourage students to frame their arguments with the TOK concepts of responsibility, power, and perspective.

Example Claims:

NAME: Do ethical responsibilities limit or strengthen the human sciences when applied to surveillance capitalism?

THESIS: Ethical responsibilities strengthen the credibility and impact of human sciences.

PROS:

• Protecting participants builds trust in human sciences.
  • Example: The video highlights how surveillance capitalism erodes trust by secretly exploiting users’ data; transparency and consent would restore legitimacy.
• Human sciences without ethics risk becoming tools of exploitation rather than knowledge.
  • Example: Psychologists and data scientists at Facebook deliberately manipulated emotions to keep users online longer — a practice criticized as unethical brainwashing.
• Global ethical standards can prevent abuses and protect democracy.
  • Example: Cambridge Analytica used psychological profiling to influence elections; stronger responsibility mechanisms could have prevented this.

CONS:

• Ethical restrictions reduce the scope of experimentation and innovation.
  • Example: Companies argue that large-scale data harvesting allows breakthroughs in targeted medicine and consumer efficiency, which might be stifled by tighter rules.
• Powerful actors will always find loopholes; ethics may only slow research, not prevent misuse.
  • Example: The GDPR in Europe was meant to protect privacy but was described in the video as ineffective, institutionalizing surveillance instead of dismantling it.
• Different perspectives create conflicting standards, weakening global research.
  • Example: China’s Social Credit System is justified as promoting “order,” while Western societies condemn it as oppressive — whose perspective should dominate?

Discuss the following reflection questions in an open discussion or exit ticket format:

• What surprised you most about how human sciences are applied to manipulate behavior in surveillance capitalism?
• Does this change your trust in human sciences as a way of producing knowledge?
• What role should institutions (like governments, tech companies, data regulators) play in maintaining ethical responsibility in human sciences research?
• Can we expect fairness when the same corporations profit from the data they collect and analyze?
• How should educators, policymakers, or citizens prepare people to navigate conflicting or manipulative uses of human sciences?
• Is it more dangerous to overtrust human sciences when misused, or to distrust them completely?