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

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

#61

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #36

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…

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And frankly I don't mind the ads, by principle, but I do mind that a few companies are able to use them to track us nearly everywhere online without allowing me to review what the…

I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation.

It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again.

Many of the incentives are towards fooling people rather than creating useful goods that enrich society with minimal environmental impact and maximum longevity.

It's unsustainable and leads to powerful (ie rich) people who are incentivised to parasitically feed on poorer people.

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

#62

Post by tsumnia » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

I've had this discussion with people before. It both sounds good and not depending on the viewpoint. The good is already spoken about in the article - I generate data that a company is in turn using to make money. The analogy I have used before is imagine if I owned land and ate apples on that land. If the apple seeds I spit out grew, I'd have apple trees. It would be bothersome to me if the state came in and sold all the apples the tree grew and I never saw a dime. Refraining from political discussion, I'm upset someone else is profiting off my work. No different than using my uploaded picture to train image processing systems.

Now the bad, how much am I REALLY worth? Online surveys pay out pennies at most for my "opinion". I'm a middle-class, white, male, computer scientist - the market is literally flooded with data from people like me. My data is only worth something if I was, say, a single Hispanic mother or some other niche demographic, and that's only because of their rarity.

Now, this is where the discussion typically leads to science fiction. I think this would be a great use of blockchain currency and let the market drive the value of your data. If there's a shortage of, say, beach pictures (because why not), then you're Instagram data might be of value. Likewise, the GPS locations of an underrepresented demographic is suddenly worth a more because its hard to get that kind of data.

But I think the major issue still falls back to how much its all worth. The article says $20,000, which nicely would support arguments for a living wage. I generate the data that runs the world, so pay me enough to live it in. However, what if the data isn't worth $20k?

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

#63

Post by ancap » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

I find the term "your data" bothersome. Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data". Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy, but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering.

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

#64

Post by taeric » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

Can't you be paid by virtue of cheaper costs? Ad agencies filtering out value is of dubious value for society. Cheaper cars, more effective roads and transit, wiser food choices, data driven medicine, and plenty of other progress points continue to help most everyone that is at stake in this discussion. My hope is it continues to help even more.

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

#65

Post by falcolas » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #53

falcolas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly Every change to an interface can potentially affect the emotions of users, whether or not you try to measure it.

I won't disagree with your statement, but there's a very large difference between intentionally changing a user's mood by modifying their news feed vs. indirectly and unintentionally affecting a users mood via an interface change.

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

#66

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:09 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…

>part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers //

Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

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

#67

Post by camillomiller » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:11 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…

You have no way to say if it's a fair deal, because we don't have proper metrics to check. Plus this data collection is instrumental to the increasing centralization of power and wealth that has the potential of getting to a dangerous extreme soon. I think we should act, and I'm proud that the EU is doing just that. Lanier's proposal might be a bit too much, but at least revising the tax scheme for companies that profit from everyone's data is a necessary step, in my opinion, in order to properly redistribute value to society.

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

#68

Post by ooyy » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

pentae wrote: post #58

I'll never understand why I can't pay Google and Facebook $20 to $50 per year to simply respect my privacy and not give me advertisements. I can't imagine they make more than this off my viewing behaviour (especially as I use adblock)

Those people who are willing to pay $50 per year for such thing are worth more than 50$ per year as targets for advertising.

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

#69

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:12 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #27

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…

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.

The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil.

"Oh, yes we harvested your data from all the sites you visited and used it to manipulate you in to buying stuff that harms your livelihood (gambling, say), but it's the _company_ that did it and so none of the controlling executives can be blamed!"

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

#70

Post by wybiral » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:12 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #61

wybiral wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And frankly I don't mind the ads, by principle, but I do mind that a few companies are able to use them to track us nearly everywhere online without allowing me to review what the…

I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation. It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again. Man…

I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation.

Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.