Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data • Hacker News Board

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#71

Post by hinkley » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

awillen wrote: post #6

I'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 think there's a category error here around 'choice'.

Who is choosing? I can walk into a store and look around without making a commitment to buy a product. I may leave realizing that there is nothing for me here. I chose not to become a customer. Or I chose to be a customer and there was a ritual exchanging of gifts and information which is relatively clear to all parties.

Websites don't work that way. I can't 'browse' without them already tracking me. I haven't agreed to anything yet. The transition happens without my awareness. It's predatory.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#72

Post by johannes1234321 » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #26

It 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…

I haven't done any maths or research on that, but did you take global numbers or boil down to market. I assume users in "Western" countries bring more than other parts of the world. Or is my assumption wrong?

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#73

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #32

jschwartzi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of people not knowing that privacy is valuable.

Or they don't care. I like to think they don't know. I fear they don't care.

The sense I get is in general, people worry about the average case, not the worst-case scenario, when it comes to privacy.

... and honestly, that might be the correct risk assessment for the average person. The worst-case scenario only happens to a few people.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#74

Post by treve » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #49

I know this is well–meaning but I think it's ultimately misguided. The root issue isn't that people aren't getting paid for their data — it's that their data is commodified in the first place.

Forcing payment for the data will make some of these business model not work, and I'm all for that. It's not about users receiving a few dollars, it's companies having to pay all them.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#75

Post by say_it_as_it_is » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

It's his right to claim highly valued services for free and then cash compensation for when he uses them. It is also the right of every sensible corporation in the world to forward that audacious claim directly into the trash bin and not entertain it for another moment.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#76

Post by elisharobinson » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

s3r3nity wrote: post #46

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the only reason people collect all of that information about me is that it's cheap to do so, would making it a bit more expensive lead to nobody bothering to collect all my information? That sounds like a win as well.

> would making it a bit more expensive lead to nobody bothering to collect all my information? No In all respect, this is a really naive view of the ad tech marketplace. The only thing that would do what you're saying is legislation. Making it more expensive just pushes out smaller players in the marketplace, leading to consolidation towards the Google's / Facebooks of the world.

a legislation with a flat tax would not be that bad. i guesstimate that close to 70% maybe more of new ads are done online. and google and facebook are disruptive to old players who pay a lot more in taxes. this tax would definitely affect new players to the digital add buisness , but i dont see anyone even trying.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#77

Post by qeternity » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #14

awillen wrote: post #6

I'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…

By adding payouts into the mix, companies become incentivized to not sell your data if it's not material to them. I go to the store, I buy something. Transaction over. The idea that the store tracks the shit out of me when I'm in the store is creepy enough. I can accept that ship has sailed since I'm in their store. That the store turns around and makes money off of that browsing data so Facebook can sell me ads for…

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#78

Post by tguedes » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #15

kumarm wrote: post #10

Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I am no fan of Facebook but I am using the service free of cost and in return company collects data for targeted advertising. Shouldn't this be more targeted at cable companies which collect a monthly fee and again sell your data? And may be forcing Big Tech to provide a paid alternative which doesn't use data collected?

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)?

That's the definition of a profitable business.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#79

Post by hansvm » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #64

hansvm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partially true. You can't sell most of your personal information. E.g., when your name, face, and weight end up in somebody's dataset it'll be because of the "free" social fitness app you used rather than because you were able to directly connect with anyone who cared about that data and work out a reasonable price.

So you're saying a marketplace hasn't been built yet. That's like saying your car had no value until Uber was built (only taxis have value), or short term rental homes had no value until Airbnb was built (only hotels have value). Your data today has value. It's how you get access to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc, for the monetary cost of $0.00. That is value, and yes, you can't cash that out to $ _yet_. T…

Kind of. I think we're talking past each other.

The ancestor comment said they "can't sell [their] data on the free market," and we contested that statement and each other a bit.

Bringing up that a marketplace hasn't been built yet and that the data still has value is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation I thought we were having. FWIW, I agree with you -- a marketplace hasn't been built (not that I'm sure it should be), and our data definitely has value.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#80

Post by codq » Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

bilal4hmed wrote: post #12

how much would you pay monthly for Google ? Im paying for Google Storage, Youtube Premium and would like one fee where I dont see any ads at all.

About a year and a half ago, the credit card I was using to pay for YouTube Premium expired and for about a day, I was subjected to ads on YT—it was horrifying.

Once you go ad-free, it's hard to go back. I'd happily pay for an ad-free version of every service I use.

Scott Galloway has been suggesting that Twitter move to a subscription model, with all accounts with less This would serve dual purpose of eliminating a whole heap of bots and fake accounts, forcing them to be tied to a credit card. With Twitter earning recurring revenue from whales, along with reducing or eliminating personal data aggregation for ad-targeting, I can't see a downside.