Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An argument that companies should pay users for their data

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 175 posts

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

#151

Post by pathseeker »

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.

>And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits

This is not how the stock market works. Where did you get this idea?

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

#152

Post by politician »

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…

The GDPR clearly lays out the definition of personal data, and the regulations are actually pretty easy to read.

https://gdpr-info.eu/chapter-1/

PS: GDPR says that "Yes, entries in web logs that can personally identify a data subject is personal data"

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

#153

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

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…

Collecting data on us, and showing us ads are not TWO different things.

It's the same thing... If they stop collecting data, they don't still get to keep the same ad revenue.

The ads are only worth the amount there are because of the hyper specific information you can target ads with. If you get rid of that, than the ad model falls apart. They might still be worth...something, but if it was just about anonymous eyeballs, probably every ad would just be for Coke and Coca Cola would pay extremely little for it.

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

#154

Post by 111_1_111 »

brwsr wrote: post #89

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 stick…

Modern slavery: a world where you need skill to find a job.

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

#155

Post by mattigames »

white-flame wrote: post #145
dasil003 wrote: post #91

This is absolute nonsense and dangerous to boot. Facebook's ARPU is still less than $20/year. If they literally paid all of their profits directly to their user it would still be a pittance. The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all. Talking about the value of the data in purely economic terms is exactly the way you would w…

If a company has to pay users for their data, that puts financial disincentives on collecting it in the first place, which might be interesting, irrespective of the users' finances.

Yeah, the incentive is to charge the users for the service in order to then use that money to pay for their data; or be very selective about what users are allowed to use the platform so its "worth" to pay for the data of that user.

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

#156

Post by saas_co_de »

dasil003 wrote: post #91

This is absolute nonsense and dangerous to boot. Facebook's ARPU is still less than $20/year. If they literally paid all of their profits directly to their user it would still be a pittance. The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all. Talking about the value of the data in purely economic terms is exactly the way you would w…

> The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all

Privacy is not the only issue.

Using user data for ad targeting is the past/present. The future is using users to train AI.

Facial recognition in photos is a good example of this. Facebook has the most advanced facial recognition in the world because they got millions (billions?) of hours of free labor from their users classifying photos.

Amazon Echo is doing the same thing with speech recognition.

Cloud based AI platforms capture the data from engineers training AI algorithms and the goal is to use that data to train an AI to replace the engineers.

Not only are people being duped into giving away their labor for free but they are increasingly being used to train the AIs that are going to replace their jobs.

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

#157

Post by RhodesianHunter »

dhimes wrote: post #148
adventured wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is probably going to hit $100+ ARPU in the US + Canada for fiscal 2018. It was $85.41 for 2017. It was $27.76 in Q4, and $21.20 in Q3 (for the US + Canada). It's not implausible that it'll eventually hit $200 per year in the US + Canada. For fun, here's their quarterly ARPU over the last few years in the US+CA, starting from 1Q15, excluding all Q4 results (Q4 skews because it spikes): $8.32, $9.30, $10.49, $…

Where are you finding these data?

Earnings Reports most likely.

https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...

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

#159

Post by wybiral »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #153
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…

Collecting data on us, and showing us ads are not TWO different things. It's the same thing... If they stop collecting data, they don't still get to keep the same ad revenue. The ads are only worth the amount there are because of the hyper specific information you can target ads with. If you get rid of that, than the ad model falls apart. They might still be worth...something, but if it was just about anonymous eyeba…

No, they are TWO different things.

Yes, data can be used to improve the effectiveness of advertisements but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. There are also data brokers who are in the business of buying and selling data not specifically for advertisement.

And before the ability to track everything you click on, search for, talk about with friends online there were industries built around advertisement that still offered targeting to some extent.

Ads can target users by classifying different channels/outlets for different purposes. So a website about gardening can offer ads for gardening supplies, etc. All without having to assemble massive databases about us.

There's a difference, don't let the data brokers confuse you.

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

#160

Post by dhimes »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #157
dhimes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you finding these data?

Earnings Reports most likely. https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...

I'm seeing $40.7B in 2017 revenue, 2.1B active monthly users (1.4B daily active users). I'd like to know how the calculation is done because I'm getting very different answers using these numbers.
Post reply on HN