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

191–200 of 288 posts

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

#191

Post by nickvincent »

Hey HN, I wanted to share this very related, but completely unaffiliated and independent initiative I’ve been a part of: https://datadividends.org . To quote the website, we’re “an ad-hoc team of scholars and practitioners (without any political affiliation) that formed to answer the questions: What are data dividends? Why should we have them? How should they work? “

Very coincidentally, we just presented on the topic of data dividends at the RadicalxChange conference two days ago (https://www.radicalxchange.org/2020-conference/, VODs still processing) and launched a website with a summary of our report yesterday. Was very surprised (and excited) to see this very similarly named project launch today!

While we’re very much interested in tackling the same core problem, I think the group agrees with many of the concerns raised in this thread (paychecks will be small, administrative challenges, etc.). We’re also very concerned about the potential for “privacy as a luxury good” and the fact that a data dividend could exacerbate existing inequalities.

Our main philosophical difference is that we argue that this discussion should be framed around the idea that the data fueling profitable intelligent technologies is “our data”, not “my data”. As such, our ideas for “disbursing the dividend” are focused on promoting collective benefit, e.g. through programs well-known to reduce inequality, support for "data unions", and new infrastructure to support the sharing of data (and ideally, increase innovation, competition, etc.).

Overall, I think increased discussion around this topic is really great!

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

#192

Post by asciident »

arghwhat wrote: post #130
asciident wrote: post #95

Earlier 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.

> That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

On other social media websites that offer "pay to remove ads" versus "get personalized ads", like Reddit or Twitch, about 1% of users pay. Wikipedia asks for donations and very few people donate, percentage-wise. So I think if you want to show a substantially higher number, say even 10%, you'll need to provided evidence. Even if 10% of users paid, would they be willing to be $170/year?

> That would just mean that facebook is an unwanted and unprofitable service which then wouldn't exist. Which is not a problem at all.

I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion, that it's unwanted. I want Facebook, and I want it for free with personalized ads. Same with Gmail, Yelp, Reddit, Google Maps, Instagram, Youtube, and a bunch of other web services. Not sure how that's so hard to understand, that this is the business model I prefer.

Same with newspapers. I don't want to pay the full cost of making a newspaper (probably $10 or so), but rather I'd purchase a very cheap subsidized newspaper with ads for $1. Or free apps with in-app purchases. Doesn't mean it's unwanted if people aren't willing to pay the cost price for it.

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

#193

Post by ses1984 »

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?

It doesn't have to be either/or. An individual could pay and opt out of data mining.

Anyway, personalized ads is just the tip of the iceberg, the real problem with that data doesn't exist on a small scale. The problem is that mountain of data could be abused, for example to manipulate public opinion, elections, the stock market, etc, and blackmail.

Even if you aren't vulnerable to these things directly, the abuse potential of such data is so high that IMO it's only a matter of time before you're indirectly negatively affected by it.

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

#194

Post by Sodman »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #153
ksdale wrote: post #131

Earlier 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.

I agree with you as a user. From the company's perspective though, I'm guessing there's a decent correlation between "people who will pay $, instead of free" and "people who have enough disposable income to impulse-buy high-cost items from your ads".

As anecdata, if you offered me instagram without ads for $10 / year I wouldn't even blink before accepting it. Yet I've also bought a half dozen things from their ads for > $50 over the last few years, which is likely more valuable to them. Or more specifically, makes their ad platform more valuable to their ad-buying business customers.

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

#195

Post by stjohnswarts »

What we really need is a new amendment to the Constitution about digital privacy rights, end to surveillance without a warrant, digital documetns are the same as "secures in your papers" from a constitutional perspective, etc. Half measures like Yang's simply won't work.

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

#196

Post by asciident »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #117
asciident wrote: post #95

Earlier 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?

> 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…

> I'd rather not use it and save myself the damage on my psyche and mental health

Scientific evidence on that is inconclusive and mixed. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11126-017-953...

> 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

Then maybe it's not for you? I like to share things with my friends, see things they share, it's mildly entertaining and somewhat informative. If you don't enjoy those things, then you don't have to participate.

> leaking personal information I'd rather not be in the hands of the very companies building the Panopticon

In a practical sense, I have never encountered any downsides with supposed data leaking / personalized ads / strangers selling information about me. I have not lost money because of it, or lost friendships, or manipulated to do something I later regret.

But I have lost time and money because of wrong information shared by the credit bureaus, lost friends and messages because of a broken phone, misleading salesmen who convinced me to buy bad products at bad prices, insurance companies that didn't pay up, and landlords who scammed me. So after I finish dealing with and worrying about actual bad actors that harm me in direct ways, maybe I'll start worrying about the ghosts.

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

#197

Post by kmkemp »

ses1984 wrote: post #193
asciident wrote: post #95

Earlier 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?

It doesn't have to be either/or. An individual could pay and opt out of data mining. Anyway, personalized ads is just the tip of the iceberg, the real problem with that data doesn't exist on a small scale. The problem is that mountain of data could be abused, for example to manipulate public opinion, elections, the stock market, etc, and blackmail. Even if you aren't vulnerable to these things directly, the abuse pot…

Opting out would then require trusting an organization who is incentivized to collect data to not collect it. That can't be the solution.

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

#198

Post by richardw »

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…

Very good chance most of the money is made from very few people. If you got a cut of money from advertisers targeting you, my guess is it’s be quite a bit over 5 bucks. Especially in an election year.

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

#199

Post by musingsole »

lordgrenville wrote: post #8

In terms of assessing the value of one individual's data, shouldn't there be some consideration for the fact that it's worth nothing to that person on their own? I can't sell my data on the free market. It's a transaction over an object that has value in only one direction.

No. The price of a good is set by the demand. The suppliers of most goods don't have much use for their goods themselves.

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

#200

Post by linuxftw »

hypewatch wrote: post #185

This sounds like an enforcement nightmare. It’s a nice idea, but how would it actually work? So we would get some sort of commission from Instagram for every ad we view. And the government will need to track this for every Californian, then divvy up a couple dollars per person each year. I know there are some Yang fans on HN and I don’t want to get too political here but his ideas are too oversimplified, from the $1k…

> This sounds like an enforcement nightmare. It’s a nice idea, but how would it actually work?

The same way anything works. The largest players write the regulations, stand up a new regulatory body, require anyone that can be remotely considered a data collector or warehouse or whatever term they come up with to 'pre-certify' their operation at a 6 or 7 figure sum to crowd out any upstart players.

Post reply on HN