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

121–130 of 288 posts

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

#121

Post by gentleman11 »

pphysch wrote: post #86
gentleman11 wrote: post #85

This is a mistaken approach. The problem with data harvesting is the threat to future human freedom, not an injustice about paying people fairly

Economic inequality and freedom are closely linked

Having a few extra dollars a month doesn’t prevent the government from punishing you for doing something they don’t like. For example, Hong Kong is relatively wealthy compared to the rest of China, but participating a protest in Hong Kong can still lead to jail time (or far worse now). Paying them a few dollars for their data does nothing for them but potentially let them take one extra day off work per year to protest, although with the censorship and monitoring that China does, is that safe?

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

#122

Post by Avicebron »

bryan_w wrote: post #109
waon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The above comment wasn't an example of that That isn't just an outright baseless claim, it's wrong by definition . The said person had to go to social media to find a donor, which 100% matches what I descibed, and the fact that some felt this was necessary points to a broken system. It's also terrible to imagine what shady companies can do with targeted ads aimed at vulnerable people who can't find any donors.

You want government enforced kidney donations?

No we want a system in which pleading to a faceless mob of people on social media is not the solution to needing a kidney transplant.

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

#123

Post by mizay7 »

Yeh, this seems backwards, the users pay the companies for free products with their data and their attention. That's the business model. Why would Facebook and Google run those servers if they couldn't have profitably targeted ads.

If you want privacy honoring products you want the users to pay money for the service.

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

#124

Post by waon »

bryan_w wrote: post #109
waon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The above comment wasn't an example of that That isn't just an outright baseless claim, it's wrong by definition . The said person had to go to social media to find a donor, which 100% matches what I descibed, and the fact that some felt this was necessary points to a broken system. It's also terrible to imagine what shady companies can do with targeted ads aimed at vulnerable people who can't find any donors.

You want government enforced kidney donations?

Of course not, and that's not my point. The point is that social media is the last place you'd want to go looking for donors, given a choice.

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

#125

Post by bilal4hmed »

spaced-out wrote: post #66
waon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already bad enough that the surveillance economy is threatening our civil liberties in more ways than one. It's outright dystopian when you need to organize a social media campaign to get medical treatment. Considering the sheer number of people who desperately need medical help, the chances of succeeding is very very low.

>It's outright dystopian when you need to organize a social media campaign to get medical treatment. The above comment wasn't an example of that, though. His friend was getting medical treatment, the issue is that you can't just buy a kidney (at least not in the US), you need to find a donor.

exactly, even in a situation where medical is all paid for you still have to find a donor yourself. There are countries where you can get a donor via "alternative" means but when going by the book, finding a donor is on you.

I cant think of any other way he could have gotten exposure without having to go on tv, radio, public areas and making his case. That power of facebook ( and other social media is undeniable )

Even Wajahat Ali on CNN, who has such a big audience, found a donor off Twitter. Not everyone has the ability to reach out to Anderson Cooper and ask for help.

For every evil thing Facebook has done, there are stories like this. Having my friend alive, his family seeing him everyday is well worth it.

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

#126

Post by luisvictoria »

mizay7 wrote: post #123

Yeh, this seems backwards, the users pay the companies for free products with their data and their attention. That's the business model. Why would Facebook and Google run those servers if they couldn't have profitably targeted ads. If you want privacy honoring products you want the users to pay money for the service.

This argument makes perfect sense, the problem starts when companies like Facebook start tracking individuals who do not use their services.

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

#127

Post by kats »

Calvin02 wrote: post #11

I 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 shows why it wouldn't work. What someone may expect to pay is something like $50/month.

In the US, the Fed did a study to figure out how much they would have to pay users to stop using products like Facebook, YouTube, or to stop using search engines altogether.

The median value for Facebook was $48/month, YouTube $1,173/month, and search $17,530/month. [1]

I think many people might pay $50/month to use Google Search, GMail, Maps, and YouTube. But what if they were to pay $18,703/month, just for Google Search and YouTube? Because that's the median price that US users valued these at.

This shows that the advertising model is way better than paid subscriptions, because users are getting much more value out of them (>$18,000/month) than they would realistically pay for them. If all these services were subscription-based and there was no advertising or data collection, almost nobody would pay for them and then the business model wouldn't be scalable so the service wouldn't work. TLDR: The advertising business model is awesome!!

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/fed-tries-to-figure-out-valu...

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

#128

Post by dfxm12 »

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.

Yes, and getting the tracking/data collection to stop is more valuable than the amounts of money being floated around in this thread.

Money doesn't solve every issue, especially when your adversaries have so much more money (and power) than you.

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

#129

Post by kats »

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.

There was actual study conducted by the Fed and an MIT prof.

They surveyed how much they would have to pay users to stop using these services:

For the median US user: $48/month for Facebook, $1,173 for YouTube, and $17,530 for internet search altogether.

For a sample of students in Europe: €2.17/month for Snapchat, €1.52 for LinkedIn, €536 for Whatsapp.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/fed-tries-to-figure-out-valu...

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

#130

Post by arghwhat »

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?

> neither would 99% of users.

That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

> would you be willing to subsidize the other 99%

That would just mean that facebook is an unwanted and unprofitable service which then wouldn't exist.

Which is not a problem at all.

Post reply on HN