your individual data is worth nothing alone. When aggregated with great many others, it then means something.
Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
171–180 of 288 posts
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that transparent pricing would be an excellent option to have, but based on some quick googling, FB's net profit is only something like 25 cents per monthly active user per month (assuming I did the math correctly...). If FB gave people a rebate in the amount of their net profit, the whole transaction would round out to FB operating and people getting it for free, so it's not obviously that bad of a deal for…
But also if your point is true, I'd happily pay $3 a year for FB to retain all rights to the data they collect about me. My data is only worth $3 a year to others, but my privacy and peace of mind is worth more than that to me.
Yeah for sure, I think these paltry per user numbers make a great case for having a user pay option.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> only give premium services to the most valuable users? Almost certainly. What people often miss in this discussion is that advertising is progressive--it's a transfer of value from richer people who can and will pay for both the service being used and the product that is being advertised to poorer people who cannot.
By convincing them to buy shit they don't need. Very progressive.
[deleted]
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's all well and good to survey people and have them answer "no" to the question "Do you want to be tracked?"
But if Facebook threw up two buttons, one saying I agree to allow targeted ads, and one saying "$17/year" and requires you to give your credit card information, it's naive to think a substantial percentage will hit the $17/year button for a product they've already been using for free.
This is, after all, how the internet got to be where it is. Not through the use of 'walled gardens' and paywalls. But by providing ad supported content.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#175how 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…
I'm curious on how the dynamics would change in that system. Frankly I think it would make everything quite a bit worse. I think one of the only benefits of twitter is that it allows organic popularity. Once you add penalties for getting too popular, people will need to make up that cost. What will happen is large accounts will start to advertise in their tweets, essentially defeating the purpose of removing advertising.
Plus, you could then weaponize bots against smaller accounts on a large scale
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#176It 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…
Less money in their hands makes them less powerful and more accountable to users. Lots of people get measly dividends per year for stocks relatively. The shareholder rights are probably equally or more important though in that case.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#177> The project’s signup form asks for people to put in all of the email addresses they use online to help identify how many platforms are currently profiting off of an individual’s data. It also asks for users to provide their PayPal information so any money that could eventually be gained from platforms could be deposited directly into a user’s account.
This seems like a wild thing to be asking for at this stage in the project.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I would characterize this as "the situation has been bad for so long in the online world that it has now metastasized into the physical world".
Could be I'm wrong about that, but how long do you have to embolden people before they do something truly brazen?
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#179It 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 $17/yr in annual revenue per user. Revenue , not profit . Cr…
Simple solution, people bargain collectively and have a sort of data ombudsman representing their interest rather than trying to get a 10$ check individually.
If people were to negotiate the value of their data collectivelly you can have a 100k or a million people in some organisation that has stewardship over their data and negotiates say, a price with facebook, and that institution either manages the money and invests it or pays it back out.
The reason people are so disempowered today in the face of these huge companies is because everyone is operating under this atomistic, individualist, consumer mindset. People can effectively negotiate when they team up.
Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
I think it's more complicated than that. It's not clear that users do intrinsically own this data. Without the product and the graph attached to the product, this data won't exist.
It gets hairy quickly. Do you own your DNA sequence? You could say it's essentially just data. Would you be opposed to a company patenting your DNA and profiting off it?