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

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

#251

Post by darawk » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

thechao wrote: post #246

darawk wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. How are you going to v…

My data is mine ; as the seller, I can price the data about me at any value I want, that doesn’t mean that someone will buy it. If Facebook comes along and takes my data for less than I’m selling it, that’s called theft , and it’s a crime.

Of course you can price it however you want. And you do. You are in control of whether and when to give away your data. If you use Facebook, you are trading your data for their services.

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

#252

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by nisten » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

monadic2 wrote: post #158

I’d be much more comfortable if I could pay Big Tech to not share my data.

Me too, in exchange for a product I don't want to be confined to a form of payment which only allows one to give away rights to their data in exchange for the product.

I'd like the legal right to always be shown the option to pay money instead.

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

#254

Post by saalweachter » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:35 AM UTC

purplecabbage77 wrote: post #235

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrew Yang and co. would likely suggest a universal basic income ;)

Isn't that basically the same thing as just having data collecting companies pay users directly?

Yeah, it would end up being the same paltry payment.

I think the correct use did eventually occur to me: turn it into funding for open source software, that is both free as in freedom and free as in beer.

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

#255

Post by waon » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:02 AM UTC

spaced-out wrote: post #161

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.

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.

I'm sure your doctor would've told you if there really were other options on the table.

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

#256

Post by nisten » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

A divident, while logically possible, may be practically quite difficult to implement and regulate effectively. Not that we shouldn't try to do it, it'll just be hard.

I think there's a simpler way to solve this. This is just an exchange, you're getting a product, and you're giving away to them and all subsequent third parties all the rights to your data in exchange. That's your payment.

The problem here is that this is your only form of payment by default for that tier of product and that sucks.

In my opinion it should illegal to do that by default without first giving the customer the option to pay in money in exchange that exact same product.

And if I'm paying I don't want you sharing my personally identifiable information shared with no analytics, no tracking, no third-party consulting and if you can't pass a security audit or can't figure out how to anonymize/encrypt my information properly, I don't want you accessing it in clear form at all outside your company promises including from your remote employees. I think that's fair.

If you're startup and can't afford to pay for a credible audit, then you shouldn't be allowed to even know my first name. You'll have to use a secure and audited intermediary to provide you that in anonymized form and you figure out how to handle on your own.

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

#257

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC

radomysisky wrote: post #208

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…

That's the point. It prevents oligopolies forming (as we have now), short of them producing enough value per user to cut them a sizeable payment. All the problems of big tech disappear when they're held accountable for their actions. The easiest way to hold them accountable is to reduce their clout.

That form of "accountability" sounds like a euphemism "not doing exactly what I want". The vagueness is downright concerning.

Not to mention the logic doesn't follow. Today nearly everyonr would agree that it would be a terrible idea to openly sell representation in congress or the ability levy and collect arbitrary taxes to the highest bidder because the incentived essentially only make sense for those who can make a large enough profit in short term to justify the expense. The best thing you could say about the policy is that if it is cheaper than an invasion adversaries might decide to buy you out instead of declaring war.

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

#258

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:12 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #178

strgcmc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They have been engaged in that sort of marketing and tracking at least back when computers were big iron only - although to a lesser degree by watching customers and tweaking stores accordingly. Milk is in the back of the grocery store? Not because of insulation or anything like that but because people often pop into the grocery store for it and "running the gauntlet" results in them picking up more items than their initial goal. Not entirely comparable in capabilities of course.

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

#259

Post by isoskeles » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:12 AM UTC

Ironically they’re using CCPA as an excuse to push this.

CCPA is supposed to help keep my data more safe. How exactly will my data be more safe upon giving Facebook some of my banking info and government id so I can officially receive payment for my data?

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

#260

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #15

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?

Facebook is also making money off of you by showing you ads. It's a question of how much is enough. Facebook is charging nothing, sure, but what if the value they take from us (our data, our ad attention+clicks) is more valuable than the value they give us (a free social media)?

Really asking for exact equal value to an exchange is in itself isn't just /a/ fallacy but an entire stack of them. It implicitly assumes a universal equal value when the utility and demand differ greatly based upon circumstances including marginal utility. One pair of boots is worth more to someone without them than someone who has eight comparable ones. Even if such exact trades could be found there is no incentive to provide them without it functioning as a loss leader of some sort.