Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go Ahead, Sell My Data

kevinjcurtin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#11

Post by kcurtin »

davidw wrote: post #8

I agree, but most people probably haven't thought it through, or if they have considered it, they're stuck on the revelation that they are the product, not the customer. Perhaps some of these companies should be more up front about 'the deal' to their users, and what its boundaries are.

What is wrong with being both? To me it seems like a mutually beneficial relationship. I am getting tremendous value from using their site to interact with and stay connected with friends. They are using my data to make money by serving me unobtrusive ads that don't really negatively impact my user experience.

I do think that being more upfront and more transparent would be a good thing, there are alot of misconceptions out there.

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#12

Post by joezydeco »

gghootch wrote: post #2

A lot of my peers would say this is just one line of code away from a society in which our every single action or movement is influenced by hyper personalized advertisements. They fear losing control of their own lives. I say bring it on. I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes

I'm curious what "losing control" means here. Do you mean they don't feel they have the willpower to resist these hyper-personalized ads? Or do they feel the ads will become so obnoxious and attention-getting (because of the personal nature) that it will interfere with their daily thought patterns?

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#14

Post by kcurtin »

rwolf wrote: post #10

It's not clear to me that ad-supported == targeted ad-supported. The claim that there is no alternative is false--the alternative is less effective (and therefore less lucrative) ads. If you ask a HN-reader to choose either 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) more profits to the website, I think it's clear why the user prefers door #1.

Facebook using the information we have made available on their network ("intrusive data collection") doesn't really have a negative impact on us as users. At least not in any tangible way.

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#15

Post by scrollbar »

rwolf wrote: post #10

It's not clear to me that ad-supported == targeted ad-supported. The claim that there is no alternative is false--the alternative is less effective (and therefore less lucrative) ads. If you ask a HN-reader to choose either 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) more profits to the website, I think it's clear why the user prefers door #1.

The better way to frame the choice is 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) ads relevant to what you might actually be interested in.

Some people don't like simple remarketing, but I do. It's not so bad that Bonobos reminds me to buy pants from them every once and awhile... I like their pants ;)

And I'm not sure of the brand effect display ads have had on me but I know I'd rather see something relevant to business, finance, or tech, as opposed to feminine products or entertainment magazines.

Yes, I'm speaking the advertising industry party line, but I do kind of agree with it.

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#16

Post by davidw »

kcurtin wrote: post #11
davidw wrote: post #8

I agree, but most people probably haven't thought it through, or if they have considered it, they're stuck on the revelation that they are the product, not the customer. Perhaps some of these companies should be more up front about 'the deal' to their users, and what its boundaries are.

What is wrong with being both? To me it seems like a mutually beneficial relationship. I am getting tremendous value from using their site to interact with and stay connected with friends. They are using my data to make money by serving me unobtrusive ads that don't really negatively impact my user experience. I do think that being more upfront and more transparent would be a good thing, there are alot of misconcepti…

Being both what? I wrote that I agreed with the point of the article. My point was that most people, who are only casual users, are going to take a while to slowly make their way down this path:

1) Oh, what a cool service! For free!

2) Huh, they're showing me ads for stuff I'm interested in... what's up with that. Oh! They're selling "me" to these companies! OMG! Privacy!!!

3) Ah... well if I know exactly what they are and are not selling, and I get the free service, I guess that makes sense and I'm ok with it. It beats paying, and I do like using it.

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#17

Post by viscanti »

elehack wrote: post #6
viscanti wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant advertising is relevant. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time (yours and the advertisers). Steps should be taken to safeguard privacy (you should never get a letter blackmailing you because of what you've done in the past), but if the focus is on making sure you only get relevant advertising and everything else is filtered before it gets to you, I consider that a win.

One major concern that remains relevant is the prospect of abuse. You can't steal, misappropriate, or abuse what doesn't exist in the first place. You can't subpoena or execute a warrant to retrieve data that was never stored. Privacy laws and rules provide some projection, but that only goes as far as they are enforced. Nonexistence of data cannot be subverted and is a much more robust protection against the data fa…

I agree. I think safeguards need to be put in place. I think it's OK for a computer algorithm to use historical information to provide relevant ads and filter out all the rest. Ideally, no one else would have any access to that data. It's more work, but I think it's worth the effort (there's way too much junk advertising out there).

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#19

Post by haliax »

While there is nothing inherently wrong with making a profit from data about users, there is quite a bit wrong with the way it's being done on Facebook, and much of the rest of the web/mobile for that matter.

For one thing, services fail to properly inform their users of what they're doing. It's quite common for ordinary users to either not know that their data is being collected and used in those ways, or the extent of the data which is being collected (e.g. Location, Phone Identifiers, and sites visited across the web).

For another, opting out is generally designed to be quite difficult. Unless you're vigilant enough to know which hosts to block (among other things) it's almost impossible to keep your browsing history out of the hands of the hands of third parties (especially with all the different ways browsers can store information, see, http://samy.pl/evercookie/). This is the case even if you do not sign up for or use a service like Facebook.

Also, as someone noted below, there is an issue with the simple fact of the data's existence, since from that point on it is out of my control, and can be used by anyone who can get their hands on it, in any way, which may well be harmful to me.

Re: Go Ahead, Sell My Data

#20

Post by vsl2 »

I agree that Facebook and other social networks have a right to make money through their business model. As the article puts it, if they didn't make money, they wouldn't exist and that would be a loss for many people.

However, there's nothing that says Facebook has the right to become a $100B company through extreme invasion of privacy and other distasteful tactics (whatever they may be - I sure don't know what fully goes on over there). Send me some targeted advertising if you have to, but I will protest against you if you make new "share-with-others-additional-information-about-yourself" features a confusing opt-out hassle.

Just recently my wife shared a photo album via Picasa and Google+, and she couldn't figure out how to restrict who could access the album, though it was very simply prior to Picasa's integration into Google Photos. Do you think Google+ engineers couldn't keep the same Picasa privacy functionality as before or is it because they want to force people to share more than they're comfortable with?

No one is saying that social networks shouldn't make money through advertising and most people are probably okay with some personal data being used for targeted advertising. But given past invasive practices and privacy concerns, there are definitely valid concerns with regards to the extent to which social networks are commoditizing/selling users' personal information in an effort to maximize profits. Furthermore, who knows what happens to sold personal information down the line?

Simple question: If changing social networks was as simple as changing your online shopping preferences, do you think Facebook could get away with what it does? Facebook can obviously take advantage of the fact that its users cannot easily leave to appropriate user data that other sites could not.

Post reply on HN