Erin Rose Glass, in a [smart 2019 post I only just discovered](http://www.erinroseglass.com/open-access-in-an-age-of-surveillance-technology/):

> Open access has a surveillance problem.

> No, I don’t mean to suggest that open access is necessarily surveillant, or that it is aiding and abetting the digital surveillance industrial complex—although it certainly can.

> The problem is much worse.

Glass [draws on](http://www.erinroseglass.com/open-access-in-an-age-of-surveillance-technology/) Shoshana Zuboff's now-famous sketch of [surveillance capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism) to warn about the, well, *compatibility* of OA with Elsevier et al.'s data turn.

As Glass states (from [her own CUNY experience](http://www.erinroseglass.com/open-access-in-an-age-of-surveillance-technology/)), there's nothing inevitable about monetized OA data. Keeping OA in-house and nonprofit is the [crucial bulwark](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/15/scholarly-communications-shouldnt-just-be-open-but-non-profit-too/).

**Bonus:** The [review of Zuboff *Surveillance Capitalism* reviews](https://www.jeffpooley.com/pubs/jansen-pooley-zuboff-review-of-reviews-2021.pdf) that Sue Curry Jansen and I recently published in *New Media & Society*.