An argument that companies should pay users for their data
1–10 of 175 posts
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#2There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means.
It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed the distinction.
We have from time to time redefined what "belong" means, but these redefinitions tend to be very complicated and have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. My guess is that a redefinition on the scale of facts about you = your property would be a disaster.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#3[deleted]
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#4Seems like an is ought question that is long settled: look at the credit reporting agencies. We may be doing impressive new things and figuring out how to learn a lot more about people, but who owns data on a person is a dead and buried question.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#5The next generation of technological progress has to be an answer to these questions.
Google and Facebook (and similar companies) have killed innovation with their monopolies and in order to break their monopolies new technologies must be invented that disrupt their business models.
It is interesting to see the NY Times advancing such avant garde ideas but it is good to see rising social consciousness of the limitations of current technology.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#6The media portrayal of the tech world would be more impactful if it weren't so hyperbolic, dramatized, and skewed. There are myriad valid complaints about the tech world, but Facebook paying you for you posting your photos is not one of them.
Facebook is free. Google search is free. 15gb of gmail/google drive is free. You get those free, truly amazing services for nothing because the companies found ways to generate value from the data being gathered. The cost to maintain that infrastructure and provide those great services is pretty high and has taken some brilliant engineers years of sweat. (I don't work for either so I'm not tooting my own horn, just giving credit where I believe credit is due)
I think as it currently stands (collect data on me and I get free 99.99% uptime, cloud available services for email, cloud drive, and social networking) is a pretty sweet deal.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#7There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means. It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed…
And here you're conflating "public facts about you" with "facts that only your cell phone / mattress / underpants / web browser know about you."
"Facts about you" falls into at least two categories: "Facts which you want and reasonably expect to remain private", and "facts which you display to the world and have no expectation of privacy about."
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#8But the value of my data alone probably is worth less than a dollar to Google and Facebook. Given the choice of getting paid a dollar, or using it for free (in exchange for them using my data), I would choose the latter.
Only in aggregate is it worth a lot.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#9But the value of my data alone probably is worth less than a dollar to Google and Facebook. Given the choice of getting paid a dollar, or using it for free (in exchange for them using my data), I would choose the latter. Only in aggregate is it worth a lot.
In that case, I would pay Google and Facebook a dollar, and keep my data safe from their prying eyes.
Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data
#10But the value of my data alone probably is worth less than a dollar to Google and Facebook. Given the choice of getting paid a dollar, or using it for free (in exchange for them using my data), I would choose the latter. Only in aggregate is it worth a lot.
In that case, I would pay Google and Facebook a dollar, and keep my data safe from their prying eyes.
I would do that too.
But the notion of getting paid for your data, when its worth so little by itself is not appealing.