Facebook is giving me much more real value than they could ever make from me in dollars.
hah love the sarcasm.
Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
21–30 of 288 posts
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#22Facebook is giving me much more real value than they could ever make from me in dollars.
This makes no sense. How much you value something is what you would be willing to pay. And they are making money from you in dollars. You just have no idea how much.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#23I'm all for people controlling their data and being fully informed of how it's being used, but I just don't understand the idea that you should be paid for the data that you give to companies when you choose to use their products. The payment that you get is the products. You don't get a check from Google, but you get to use Google, which is an incredibly useful tool. I like Yang, but I think he's barking up the wron…
I recommend Jaron Lanier's "Who Owns The Future?" [0] on the subject. Trading data for services is not an unreasonable mechanism for value exchange, a priori, and arguably better than nothing at all (the social externalities of "engagement algorithms" notwithstanding).
Rather, I think consumers are getting a poor exchange rate, not least because they have very little agency or transparency into the nature of the transaction. It's all or nothing: cede massive economic power to a small number of centralized corporations and enjoy (admittedly significant) trickle-down utility value; or, live as a quasi-Luddite and eschew these services entirely [1].
It's also worth noting the hidden costs behind the scenes: the massive power of data consolidation, and the accompanying "winner take all" dynamics, creates near-monopoly power in which the centralized networks (Amazon in particular) can dictate terms and prices, usually through the supply side rather than the demand side as was done by trusts and monopolies of old. (This also isn't new to internet services: the centralization of purchasing data through debit/credit cards pioneered the model.)
Lastly, Lanier likes to point out the curse of normalizing the price of "free" for software and services: while consumers obviously prefer it, every consumer is also a producer in one way or another, and so will find when it's their turn to sell some digital service / creative work / non-excludable good, the market is largely intractable to actually paying for things. The "surveillance capitalism" model crowds out other business models in many cases, making a small number of centralized winners the only players with the economy of scale to make money on "free" services.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Owns_the_Future%3F
[1] Even then, one's data is often swept up indirectly through one's social graph. If I avoid using Google services, but send an email to a @gmail.com, the contents of that email are ingested and profited from all the same.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#24In all countries except Iran, the trade of human organs has been made illegal. Organ donation is legal, of course, but under strict regulation to ensure that it's being done ethically for everyone involved.
We had good reasons to prohibit the sale of human parts (even if the donor consents to getting paid for the transplantation). Now, we have very good reasons to protect personal data too.
Why not forbid the trade of personal data for the same reasons we banned it for our physical parts, and implement strong regulations (GDPR 2.0) to make sure that organizations only access and use our personal data for ethical, commonly-approved purposes?
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#25I foresee tech companies creating paid and non-paid versions of their products. If you don't want your data monetized, please pay $50/month for Google Search, GMail, Maps, and YouTube. If you are okay with the value exchange of ads and free services, then you are opting into a mutually agreed upon arrangement with no compensation.
This business strategy has been known to fail time and time again. Once a product is launched with the "Freemium" model, it is very difficult to switch to a subscription model without losing the majority of the customer base.
This article argues that freemium is a marketing tool, not a business model:
https://medium.com/m8-ventures/why-freemium-doesnt-work-so-w...
The M&Ms example is delightfully succinct in explaining why the transition never works.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#26It doesn't work. There isn't enough money in the data for anyone to care. Your entire data load might be worth $100 a year. The only reason it funds massive industries is cost-effective aggregation by dirt-cheap computer power.
I ran the numbers on Facebook a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462402 It comes out that they're making roughly $17/yr in annual revenue per user. Revenue, not profit. Cross checking my numbers against some other sources, it may be now more like $40 or $50/yr. Profits, the thing they could actually afford to share with you, look like maybe $10/year. So, what, Facebook is going to cut me a check for $5 every year? Google sends me another 5-spot, and a few other companies send me a dollar or less? What problem does that solve?
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#27It doesn't work. There isn't enough money in the data for anyone to care. Your entire data load might be worth $100 a year . The only reason it funds massive industries is cost-effective aggregation by dirt-cheap computer power. I ran the numbers on Facebook a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462402 It comes out that they're making roughly $17/yr in annual revenue per user. Revenue , not profit . Cr…
The problem of people not knowing that privacy is valuable.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#28It doesn't work. There isn't enough money in the data for anyone to care. Your entire data load might be worth $100 a year . The only reason it funds massive industries is cost-effective aggregation by dirt-cheap computer power. I ran the numbers on Facebook a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462402 It comes out that they're making roughly $17/yr in annual revenue per user. Revenue , not profit . Cr…
The problem of people not knowing that privacy is valuable.
How does $10/year solve that problem? Seems more like you'll get a lot of people saying "Oh, is that all they're doing to me? Great! I guess there's no problem here!"
I mean, if people found out there was a $1000 or $10,000 vein of value to mine, yeah, people might get upset and demand a more "fair portion", but they're not going to get upset over $10/year.
The problem isn't the amount of money the companies are making on your privacy, the problem is what they are doing to make that money. I'm appalled at the damage to society they're willing to do to make that little money, but you're not going to convince anyone of any problems by focusing on the "little money" part.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is also making money off of you by showing you ads. It's a question of how much is enough. Facebook is charging nothing, sure, but what if the value they take from us (our data, our ad attention+clicks) is more valuable than the value they give us (a free social media)?
Well if what they gave us was more valuable than what they took, they wouldn’t be a very profitable company, would it?
The value of what they provide isn't necessarily it's cost.
That's the whole reason we trade. The value of a good is different to different people. If a book is worth £5 to me, and £1 to you, then if I give you £2.50 for the book we've both gained more than we've lost.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is also making money off of you by showing you ads. It's a question of how much is enough. Facebook is charging nothing, sure, but what if the value they take from us (our data, our ad attention+clicks) is more valuable than the value they give us (a free social media)?
Well if what they gave us was more valuable than what they took, they wouldn’t be a very profitable company, would it?
No the value is decided at the moment of transaction, so that's how companies can accumulate value over transactions that are deemed "fair" by both parties. You can decide go give someone $10 for bunch of apple, and the seller can accumulate value from this.
The problem here is that one side of the trade does not fully know the value they provide. When you give $10 for an apple, you know exactly what you give and what you get. When you give $0+"your data"+"your ad view/clicks" for "free Facebook service" it's really really unclear what it is you're giving to Facebook and what it is Facebook is giving you.