An argument that companies should pay users for their data • Hacker News Board

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#21

Post by fwdpropaganda » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #16

wpasc wrote: post #6

The 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…

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services.

Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance.

Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

However, advertising is valuable to advertisers because it works to some degree. And it works because people are influenced by it. Now, as an individual I have no control over what other people are doing and so I have no control over how valuable advertising is and how much is being spent on it and how much is being passed on to consumers. Therefore as an individual I look around me and prices are what they are and already have in them advertising costs which will not go up by me using service. Therefore as an individual the marginal cost of me using these services is effectively zero (imagine the ratio between the value of advertising to me and the aggregate value of advertising, that's effectively zero). As an individual those services are free.

So it depends on what your definition of "free" is. A) Would prices be lower if advertising didn't exist? Yes [0]. B) Would prices be lower to me if I didn't use these services? No. The thing is that in definition A) I don't really have a choice, so it's irrelevant. I only have a choice as an individual.

[0] And even here some people will disagree with you. What I call "free market fundamentalists" will argue that No, they wouldn't, because the advertising leads to higher sales and greater operational efficiency, so that advertising costs are exactly offset by lower per-unit costs.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#22

Post by oldcynic » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

wpasc wrote: post #6

The 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…

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so.

> You get those free, truly amazing services

lol. Services that exist without an honest portrayal about what they do with the data they gather, or anything like clarity on the extent of what is possible.

Not content with that, they bend the service to better manipulate us not to provide a better service. Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. How many times have FB been pulled up for being, cough, "less than honest"?

Google, especially, have built a reputation for simply gathering maximum possible data, then shuttering the product 18 months later. There is no reason a company Google's size need close Reader or Picasa or any number of others. Buy their in-home device or use G Drive? Hell no, i don't trust them to provide any availability once the data grab is complete. Sure if the company is entering leaner times you can understand canning some of their services, right now it's no more than a rounding error. So no, I'm in no rush to use any new Google offering - they don't exist long enough.

I think as it currently stands (collect data on me, lie to me, track me around the web as far as technically possible, track me off the service as far as technically possible, track me offline as far as possible, sell retargeting and other dubious tactics to ensure my life is 101% a buying consumer experience with no time off. In return I get a service that doesn't even meet the core need any more thanks to engagement algorithms bending it to meet FB and Google need not users') is a pretty terrifying deal.

Terrifying because we still think it's an honest exchange akin to swapping £1 for a bar of chocolate in a shop, just swap data for service. We still feel it's a fair exchange. Yeah, without honesty of even 10% of what is being done.

I'd actually like the sort of exchange you imply. Give me a great service in exchange for some data. Actually, yes, that seems fair so long as you use it reasonably. Hoovering up everything, with the Hoover turned up to 11, whilst implying "it's just a bit of data" is a confidence trick on the non-technical.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#23

Post by sh33mp » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

oldcynic wrote: post #22

wpasc wrote: post #6

The 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…

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so. > You get those free, truly amazing services lol. Services that exist without an honest portrayal about what they do with the data they gather, or anything like clarity on the extent of what is possible. Not content with th…

>Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics.

I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#24

Post by marcinzm » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #16

wpasc wrote: post #6

The 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…

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

It's not like advertising didn't exist before the internet so blaming the tech giants solely for it's impact on society seems odd. They didn't create advertising, they simply took away advertising money from other mediums.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#25

Post by eeZah7Ux » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #21

sharemywin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance. Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in…

> But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising.

> As an individual those services are free.

Perhaps those are free to you, personally.

Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#26

Post by fwdpropaganda » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:38 PM UTC

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #25

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance. Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in…

> But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising. > As an individual those services are free. Perhaps those are free to you, personally. Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fract…

> > But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

> If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising.

> > As an individual those services are free.

> Perhaps those are free to you, personally.

> Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.

So you just repeated my points, but worse. For example, it is not true that the customers are paying for all of the advertising. The way to determine what customers are paying for is to see how the world with advertiising compares with the world without advertising, and there's many possibilities. A) with advertising the company revenues are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (companies pass all cost to consumers), B) with advertising company costs are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (meaning the companies pass all cost to shareholders in the form of lower margins and lower return on equity, or related metric), C) something in between. So it's not true that necessarily customers are paying for all of the advertising.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#27

Post by sharemywin » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #21

sharemywin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance. Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in…

And as long as we as consumers and employees act as individuals and for profit companies act has collectives we will always be at a huge negotiating dis-advantage.

The idea that corporations = people is foolish and obviously leading to a reality that doesn't fit the model.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#28

Post by falcolas » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

sh33mp wrote: post #23

oldcynic wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so. > You get those free, truly amazing services lol. Services that exist without an honest portrayal about what they do with the data they gather, or anything like clarity on the extent of what is possible. Not content with th…

>Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?

Two things:

- They weren't experimenting or measuring ads, clickthroughs, or pageviews views; they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly

- It was run as a psychological study, and published as a psychological study

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#29

Post by 908087 » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #24

sharemywin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

It's not like advertising didn't exist before the internet so blaming the tech giants solely for it's impact on society seems odd. They didn't create advertising, they simply took away advertising money from other mediums.

Advertising didn't previously involve putting society in a glass bubble of 24/7 surveillance and granular manipulation.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#30

Post by specialist » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

montrose wrote: post #2

There'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…

I disagree.

You're trying to distinguish between privacy and identity.

If there's a dividing line, it's very, very hard to discern.