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

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

#81

Post by afpx » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

ryanmonroe wrote: post #45

afpx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Because I find your emphatic endorsement hard to understand. To be fair, I do use some of these services, too (carefully). But, that’s only because often I can’t find quality alternatives. For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none. Since gather…

You start by saying the parent comment is hard to understand, then go on to explain why the statements are true. These two statements are essentially the same >Since gathering / ad-selling services are so lucrative, they essentially subsidize the development of the highest-quality products in the market. The best engineers work for these companies. They have massive teams of people refining their products. And, these…

I understand what you mean. But, for me to get the same quality of service (without regulation), I’d have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, at least. But, if there were regulations (like, to force service providers to have both a ‘free’ and a for-fee privacy-protected version), I’d probably only have to pay a few dollars.

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

#82

Post by walterstucco » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #52

afpx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Because I find your emphatic endorsement hard to understand. To be fair, I do use some of these services, too (carefully). But, that’s only because often I can’t find quality alternatives. For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none. Since gather…

>First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Of course. No one would be using them if they weren't better off from using them.

Counter points: heroin, gambling, alcohol

Exploiting addiction is not exactly good

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

#83

Post by cinquemb » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

oldcynic wrote: post #55

dsacco wrote: post #47

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. In my opinion, you're mistaking apathy for ignorance. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the exchange is fair. I work in tech, have heard everything you just wrote many times, and my response is continual…

> outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care Quite, but some of those very same people who don't care will call it creepy when they are on the receiving end of a retargeting campaign. Of course some don't care, or just find it funny. That's how I've got dragged in to those occasional conversations - typically a friend is spooked at the fact sudde…

>So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.

And not only that, but useds aren't expected to try to quell their dissonance by being more adversarial to these mostly free services (some would say its not even an option because it is just impossible™ for them), and companies are expected to try to coddle to useds desires that they won't try to rectify for themselves by being more adversarial.

I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance.

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

#84

Post by specialist » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

gipp wrote: post #56

specialist wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. We currently don't even have the right to determine who has our data, or how its being exploited. The remedy, of course, is to establish intrinsic properties rights over our own data. No different than copyrights. Maybe we need a new catchphrase. I propose bodyrights . It captures the notions of self, privacy, identity, and sovereignty all in one.

Okay, but like operationally, what does that even mean ? How do we establish a legal definition of what "your data" even is? When we talk about "big data" and data collection, the vast majority of what we're talking about basically just boils down to web logs, and derived data that's inferred from those logs. So is an entry in a web log that corresponds to something you did now your property? Is anything someone writ…

Can those bits of data be tied back to people?

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

#85

Post by specialist » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #71

specialist wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. We currently don't even have the right to determine who has our data, or how its being exploited. The remedy, of course, is to establish intrinsic properties rights over our own data. No different than copyrights. Maybe we need a new catchphrase. I propose bodyrights . It captures the notions of self, privacy, identity, and sovereignty all in one.

PII, Personal Identifiable Information, is the phrase I know for this. I'd like to see a requirement for all companies receiving PII to issue an account of how they use it and who it's sold to, those receiving your PII would also have an obligation to notify you, and offer access to the same audit data (how they're using it, who they got it from, who they gave/sold it to). Legit companies would then leak information,…

Agreed.

I insist that all demographic data at rest is encrypted.

I currently believe our objectives are complimentary.

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

#86

Post by pbalau » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:12 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.

Not sure I follow. You assert that a product will be designed to cost FOO, but then they decide to advertise and they increase the price to FOO + x. That's not how it works, the advertising costs are built in the original FOO, being presentations, conferences, regular ads, you name it.

Companies use advertising to increase their sales, either from 0 to something or from something to something more. Along with R&D, production costs, running costs and profit, the advertising cost is part of the planning from the start.

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

#87

Post by S-jet » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:15 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…

The problem with all these free services is that we are short sighted. We will pay for all in a long term.

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

#88

Post by saas_co_de » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #49

saas_co_de wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google deleted all personal data, the company would not be worth $0 They would be worth less than zero because without the personal data they would have no ad revenue to subsidize their money losing loss-leader ventures that only exist to collect data and/or suck people in to watch advertising.

Google made plenty of money from search and search advertising before personalization.

What you search for is personal data.

The search engine is just a targeting mechanism for ads. You tell Google what you are searching for and they serve you a targeted ad. That has always been the business model.

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

#89

Post by brwsr » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

Off course, but the steady stream of money to the rich is unstoppable. The problem is that we are conditioned to accept the extreme wealthy and even look up to them. Most people think everything is OK as long as they have a decent income. So most people only find out first about the horror of this system once they lose their job and hit the streets. But then it's all too late when the reality sinks in. With the sticker POOR on your head your kinda lost till you die in this world.

We live in a world of modern slavery where one needs the skill and luck to find a good job to avoid the streets. A better distribution of wealth would be great of course. Imagine all those billionaires rendering at least half of their fortunes back to the poor. But that is not realistic and will never happen. Things will get worse to the point they lock us up in some sort of "District 9" (Elysium).

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

#90

Post by pbalau » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #26

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

If we are speaking about a product that I have to pay for or a paid service, then I will end up paying a share of the R&D, maintenance, advertising.

If we are speaking about a service provided at no cost to me and the provider makes money off advertising, then I will end up paying some share of that if and only if my access to said service is charged by a 3rd party, eg a phone company that charges me for traffic, vs my home connection which is a flat rate, regardless if I use it or not.