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

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 288 posts

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

#111

Post by kats »

devalgo wrote: post #33
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?

>Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I think it's more about changing the frame. That Tech companies have been profiting off something you actually have always intrinsically owned, your personal data, and now is the time to retake that ownership.

But there's a lot of cases where there's data about someone that is not owned by them. e.g. If I go into a store and am recorded on the CCTV, the store still owns that video, even if it is about me. This could be pretty similar to the way that if someone uses Facebook and clicks on something, Facebook would own the log which recorded this.

In other cases the data that users upload to websites is definitely owned by them. e.g. If I take a picture on my phone, and then later upload it to Facebook, the photo is still owned by me. However, for any site that allows users to upload photos, it will be part of the terms of service that the users give the site a license to display the photo.

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

#112

Post by strgcmc »

hinkley wrote: post #71
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 'bro…

You may be (un)pleasantly surprised by the amount of physical/real-world tracking of in-store traffic that stores are engaging in now. In many physical stores, you don't really have the option of "'browsing' without them already tracking me" either. Worse yet, there's not even a pretense of viewing/accept some Terms and Conditions when you physically enter the store (at least websites pay the lip service of having a T&C posted or a cookie consent pop-up).

One random example from 2018 (so, probably a lot more advanced and widespread by now): https://www.adweek.com/digital/adobes-newest-labs-project-ca...

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

#113

Post by maerF0x0 »

This seems to be an area full of quandries.

If data is your property, then you can sell it to someone else permanently without royalty. Expect to see signup forms that say your first month of SaaS app is $0.01 and you will receive a credit for $0.01 for selling your data to them.

If data is Intellectual Property subject to royalty like other intellectual property (say, stock photos for example) then you can assign away the royalties and we can expect it to be assigned away in the signup form or EULA.

If data is a form of labor it will be subject to minimum wage laws and other employment law.

If data is intrinsic to the individual it cannot be sold or reassigned (like i cannot sell or reassign my other human rights).

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

#114

Post by awillen »

grok22 wrote: post #104
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…

If Google charged for the same services instead of providing it for free, would they make the same amount of billions? I assume everyone would agree that they would make way less. So the exchange in value is asymmetric and it still sort-of makes sense that you get some money for the outsize value that your personal details represents to them.

What's wrong with that, though? That's the essence of a lot of business - I take something with a certain amount of value to you and find a way to make it more valuable to someone else, then I capture the value I added along the way. The guy who sells flour to the baker isn't getting cheated because the baker can sell the flour for more than he pays for it once he puts it into a cake.

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

#116

Post by bryan_w »

AlexandrB wrote: post #100
baron816 wrote: post #51

Why would you pay for something people are giving you for free? If people are volunteering that information, I think it’s fine to use it to finance the free product they’re getting. I’m totally free to not use Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

I would like you to explain to me how you could avoid using Google given that Google Analytics is present in some 70% of the top 10,000 websites and reCaptcha also has huge penetration.

Browse in incognito mode. It shouldn't give GA any tractable info. That's the easiest way without installing a browser plugin, but if you do a 2 second plugin search, you'll find many that block Google and the 1000's of other companies that are tracking you that you don't know about

This is completely a technical problem that can be solved in software

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

#117

Post by Melting_Harps »

asciident wrote: post #95
erentz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see these breakdowns I think I’d pay $17 per year for Facebook without all of the ads and tracking and data mining and knowing I was just getting a good service optimized for its customers. Why not ban tracking and ad targeting and selling personal data, and force that business model to go extinct, and now they have to start charging for service and their users become actual customers.

I would not, I'd rather they target me with personalized ads like they are doing now. I hate paying for things, and I imagine neither would 99% of users. Since me and the other 99% of people contribute most of the value to Facebook for you, would you be willing to subsidize the other 99% of people and pay $1700/year?

> When I see these breakdowns I think I’d pay $17 per year for Facebook without all of the ads and tracking and data mining and knowing I was just getting a good service optimized for its customers.

> I would not, I'd rather they target me with personalized ads like they are doing now. I hate paying for things, and I imagine neither would 99% of users.

I will never understand the mind of a typical social media user(s), as I'd rather not use it and save myself the damage on my psyche and mental health as well as leaking personal information I'd rather not be in the hands of the very companies building the Panopticon.

Other than the supposed potential dating benefits, having an actual active social life I don't get the appeal as I probably say I meet too many people for my own good, what can you say really is worth it that you can't do with text/email? The digital life that was sold to us as an amazing replacement is actually proving to be really sad as COVID has shown and is perhaps one of the reasons I can comprehend why people are out there violating it as its proven to be an incredibly undesirable and lonely experience.

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

#118

Post by chillacy »

baron816 wrote: post #51

Why would you pay for something people are giving you for free? If people are volunteering that information, I think it’s fine to use it to finance the free product they’re getting. I’m totally free to not use Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

> If people are volunteering that information

Given the articles and comments I've read in the past year, I don't think a lot of people are exactly thrilled with the exchange.

Outside of HN I think there's some feeling of unfairness to see so much money being made off "our data", for better or worse. It's complicated because the data isn't worth much until it's processed and analyzed, and that's where much of the value-add is. But nonetheless unfairness is a very strong emotion.

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

#119

Post by ngngngng »

I wish Facebook didn't exist. The sad truth is that if I delete my Facebook there are a couple hundred people I would never hear from again. Countless community events I would never be invited to because Facebook is all anyone uses to get the word out around here.

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

#120

Post by awillen »

hinkley wrote: post #71
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 'bro…

Sure, which is precisely why my point is that the solution here is transparency, not giving people money. If people are educated about what information they're providing and what it's being used for, then they do have that choice.

Imagine you had a screen like you do when you connect two integrated services that tells you exactly what data is being sent (e.g. if you authorize this mobile game to access your Facebook account, it will be able to access your profile picture, friends list, etc.) before you access a site. If that happens, you know that the site is going to collect your location data, browsing history, etc., and you know that they are going to use it to both serve you ads and will sell it to third parties. From there, you can make a decision as to whether that use of your data is worth access to the site, and the market will eventually decide what value people place on their data.

Post reply on HN