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

161–170 of 288 posts

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

#161

Post by spaced-out »

waon wrote: post #89
spaced-out wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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.

If I needed a kidney and couldn't find a donor through personal connections, I would hope a company with something to offer would ad-target me.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by joshuamorton »

erentz wrote: post #55
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…

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.

Many of the features users find useful (let's ignore for the moment whether these are good things) like content recommendations and search result recommendations rely on the same understanding of user interests that allow these companies to target advertisements.

So they need to understand your interests anyway to provide the services that people find useful. So they still need forms of tracking to do the things that people find useful on the sites.

So what do we do?

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

#165

Post by lucasb9 »

The online "user data" business model is identical to the highway, or the magazine, or the mall, or the airport business model. You create traffic by providing access at or below cost, and make money by selling ads to all the traffic you create. Should highways, airports or magazines pay users money from the revenue they generate by selling ads around their high traffic properties? Another consideration is about the proportion of an ad's cost that can be attributable to the data these companies have, which depends on the degree to which the ad is targeted or not. For example, are keyword-tied search ads and the money Google makes from them related at all to any data they may have on you?

Furthermore, any attempt to account for the "price" of used data (basically just something to id you online) should be matched by a valuation of the true value this companies offer in compensation. In the case of google: what's the value to users from having fast, accurate search; petabytes upon petabytes of free content (from the mundane to the educational) on youtube ($5 - $9/mo if you go by Disney+/Netflix prices); and entire office suite ($5 - $12/mo looking at many SaaS/Office 365) kept up to date; a quality email client ($99/yr for Hey); a free OS for your phone and computer (Android/Chromebooks); a high quality global mapping service w/ turn-by-turn GPS ($300 devices back in the day?); a Calendar ($3 - $9/mo looking at competitors), 15GB of cloud storage; unlimited storage for all your photos in the cloud (say the average user has 50Gb of photos, thats $3 - $9/mo).... and I could go on. In the case of Facebook I believe there is genuine value in having a directory of all your friends/acquaintances/family, and a repository for memories either there or on instagram.

I see the techlash and policies like this data-dividend as a very natural impulse from society to get a spoonfull from the honeypot these companies created. Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is right. Our economic model is premised on the idea that the fruits of your labor/property/ideas are yours to keep, however spectacular they may be. Keep in mind that this policy does nothing to change the way this companies operate, or question their overall effects on society.

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

#166

Post by renewiltord »

shrimpx wrote: post #157
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…

The gap in your reasoning is the assumption that giving them your data is an exact and fair payment in exchange for using their service. We actually have no idea how much data is worth, because these companies have created a culture that simply takes data from you. There is no market. Isn’t that convenient for facebook and google?

For those who are comfortable sharing their data, it is a fair payment by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Especially because Google has alternatives that you're not forced into.

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

#167

Post by _curious_ »

"We are asking you to sign a written authorization giving DDP the authority to act as your authorized agent to exercise your legal rights under the CCPA."

OK, so first question - what is this DDP entity?

A "movement" doesn't tell me who or what entity I am assigning agency to, endorsing, giving money to, etc.

The article omits this key piece of information and nor does the website disclose on a cursory glance! Is it a gov org? nonprofit, for profit, coop, other? And equally important: who legally runs/owns it? Am I missing the obvious here?!

Without a clear and upfront answer to the basics here, I would not recommend anyone blindly engage with / opt into anything like this regardless of whose brainchild it is.

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

#168

Post by rojobuffalo »

qeternity wrote: post #77
fragmede wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BS. paying for internet products with personal data is nothing like a financial transaction at a store. money is a uniform unit; personal data is not that.

Those of us who are well-aware of data harvesting still forget about it all the time; it isn't at the forefront of our attention when we're shopping on Amazon or watching videos on Youtube. at a store you pull money out of your wallet, all the elements of the exchange are at the top of your attention, and when it's over it's over.

data collection is constant, has far-reaching effects on the future, and we have no intuition about the manipulation we're opening ourselves up to.

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

#169

Post by justicezyx »

lucasb9 wrote: post #165

The online "user data" business model is identical to the highway, or the magazine, or the mall, or the airport business model. You create traffic by providing access at or below cost, and make money by selling ads to all the traffic you create. Should highways, airports or magazines pay users money from the revenue they generate by selling ads around their high traffic properties? Another consideration is about the…

The analogy between online ads and highway is very weak.

#1 highway is essential, they provide transport. Online ads on the other hand, is not. In the sense that most ads are for arousing consumerism impulse. (No I am not arguing ads is wrong or something, I was saying if they are not as essential ad highway)

#2 highway is physical and does not infringe privacy. Online ads are virtual, and blindly intrusive to privacy.

#3 highway is regulated as infrastructure, internet ads companies are not. And they are ferociously resisting being treated as infrastructure.

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

#170

Post by m0zg »

Instead of the lunatic, "lead balloon" BS like this (or UBI, for that matter), I'd rather someone worked on requiring US websites to honor "do not track" by law. Right now there's this idiotic arms race where browser vendors (other than Google, of course) are baking in more and more anti-tracking, and adtech companies are piling on more and more sophisticated tracking on the other end. Because the problem is asymmetrical, tracking always beats anti-tracking.

Ideally, I'd like to have a switch that would just disable tracking on everything, and if I find out I'm still being tracked, I need to be able to sue. The whole tracking bullshit will solve itself in no time at all.

And no, GDPR cookie warnings are basically deliberate sabotage of this idea, because presented with an option with lots of text the user always clicks "yes".

Post reply on HN