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

An argument that companies should pay users for their data

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#131

Post by cinquemb »

dsacco wrote: post #109
cinquemb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there. And not only that, but useds aren't expected to try to quell their dissonance by being more adversarial to these mostly free services (some would say its not even an option because it is just impossible™ for them), and companies are expected to try to coddle to useds desires that they won't try to rectify for themselves by being more adversarial. I do…

> And not only that, but useds aren't expected... > ...try to coddle to useds desires... > I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance. Using Stallman-esque terminology like "useds" to refer to people really doesn't encourage anyone to listen to you who doesn't already agree with the point you're making. It's condescending, puerile and snarky to the detriment of discussion. It makes your poin…

>It implicitly puts you above them intellectually and delegitimizes their opinions

If one's opinion at the end of the day doesn't involve one changing one's behavior to combat the influences of those who use information about/relating to them, then sure one can call it out that I'm delegitimizing their opinion and implicitly putting myself above them intellectually, regardless of whether or not I think that is completely true based on what I have observed of people who are in a state of cognitive dissonance (self admitted or not) and continue to engage intimately with these platforms/services/devices/applications.

Still, it is ultimately up to everyone to change their own behavior in face of their own cognitive dissonance, instead of the usual discussions on here that are infantilizing and void of the reality of the situation, as if we as people have no sense of self agency.

>…If all you want to do is signal your ingroup to other people then using the term "useds" makes sense.…

This is probably closer to the truth.

In actuality, the reason I have been able to work with some of the data I have is because of useds, so in a sense I'm grateful because I get to research things that builds on what we know now (or more selfishly, I can get better personal insight into the behaviors of others around me). So if those who have cognitive dissonance don't want to listen to me, and continue on doing nothing except delegating their responsibility for their choices to others, that's fine, because the way things are now, it will only get better for those who will be able to leverage such.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#133

Post by stratigos »

Ive been saying it for years - I wont allow fb, twttr, ggl, or any of the tech giants access to my data until they compensate me fairly for it. If theyre making billions off of us, then I want a few thousand in return. Until then, no accounts and no data from me! Privacy Badger, ABPlus, block @ DNS level, etc.

Also Ive been a succesful technologist, programmer, and social being for many decades, and not having any of those accounts has never been a downer in my life. I feel much healthier, sound, and happier than my peers that have FB accounts. Cant see the value in that jank. Cant see why it makes sense to empower those companies at our expense.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#134

Post by marcinzm »

saas_co_de wrote: post #88
marcinzm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google made plenty of money from search and search advertising before personalization.

What you search for is personal data. The search engine is just a targeting mechanism for ads. You tell Google what you are searching for and they serve you a targeted ad. That has always been the business model.

By that logic an ad in a travel magazine is using your personal data.

I personally wouldn't consider search ads with no data being stored or user level history being used as not being personalized or user targeted. They're to me no different from an ad in magazine or a static banner ad on a web page.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#135

Post by canadianwriter »

trendia wrote: post #132

Can I trademark my likeness (as famous actors or musicians do) and then sue Facebook if they use it? I'm sure there's some reason it wouldn't work, but it's fun to think about.

In general they use ananymized data. No one is advertising to Burt who likes bee hives, they are advertising to a cookie pool that likes bee hives. Your likeness would probably not cover anonymized data. At least here in Canada, PII (personally identifiable info such as email) is not allowed to be used.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#136

Post by s73v3r_ »

ancap wrote: post #116
s73v3r_ wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data"." Yes it does. "Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy" That it is. " but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering." And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?

>Yes it does. While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced. >And when did I agree to Equifax's terms? You didn't need to because they never stored "your data".

"While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced."

It was far more compelling that your argument.

"You didn't need to because they never stored "your data"."

Yes, they did. My social security number, my address history, my employment history, all my data.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#137

Post by s73v3r_ »

ancap wrote: post #119
s73v3r_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that people are perfectly rational actors with perfect information has long since been debunked.

Sure people are rational, even though you as an external actor may not agree with their motives. Even a schizophrenic is rational given what they have to work with. I'm not sure what perfect information has to do with anything. It's impossible that perfect information could ever exist.

No, they're not. They're people. They do not act perfectly rational.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#138

Post by tsumnia »

tinymollusk wrote: post #118
tsumnia wrote: post #62

I've had this discussion with people before. It both sounds good and not depending on the viewpoint. The good is already spoken about in the article - I generate data that a company is in turn using to make money. The analogy I have used before is imagine if I owned land and ate apples on that land. If the apple seeds I spit out grew, I'd have apple trees. It would be bothersome to me if the state came in and sold al…

I think your analogy would be more apt if you were spitting seeds onto public property, and the state took the trees. Or even further: you spit seeds (your data) onto Google's property while they gave you a free tram ride to the other side.

Another could be someone lets you use their land for free, so you use the land to grow a unique breed of flowers. Later you find out that person that owns the land is selling honey from bees that visit those flowers (solely or in some combination with other flower patches). This honey revenue depends on your proper upkeep of your flowers.

Okay, fine, its the cost for using their land.

But THEN, you find out that your flowers (or, again, the combination) are so unique, that person begins making millions of dollars in revenue off the honey.

As the primary producer of the income, I'd feel a bit shafted if I didn't get some of type of reciprocation.

Doubly so if that person accidentally let a malicious entity on the land who then stole my unique breed of flower and then started selling/reproducing it.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#139

Post by jstarfish »

mdpopescu wrote: post #106
chopin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is pretty easy. The moment you start storing this data outside your brain, it's "my" data. You can memorize or observe it all you want but not store it permanently or semi-permanently elsewhere. I think it is a sad state of affairs that it had to come to this point resulting from "don't ask for permission upfront, ask for forgiveness later" (most skip the latter part anyway, if not confronted with a shitst…

> I think it is a sad state of affairs that it had to come to this point resulting from "don't ask for permission upfront, ask for forgiveness later" Huh. I actually believe most western societies are incredibly tilted in the "ask permission" direction. You have to petition to start a business, cut someone's hair, buy a gun, get married, copy a book... I could probably find a hundred things you're supposed to ask for…

> You have to petition to start a business, cut someone's hair, buy a gun, get married, copy a book... I could probably find a hundred things you're supposed to ask for permission before doing.

The rules are very selectively enforced depending on what class you belong to though.

As a guy with a pair of scissors, I can't start cutting hair without "asking permission" in the form of a license. As a guy with a cart, I can't sell hot dogs on the street corner without getting some sort of vending license.

I can't just start driving around and picking up random fares in my car without applying for a limousine license or taxi medallion.

But then you get Uber, whose business model was based around ignoring these regulations and scaling to such size where they were too big to prosecute (easily).

Just the same, I'll get fined if I catch too many fish from the local pond whether or not I've gone to the trouble of applying for a fishing license, but Acme Megacorp will go ahead and dump toxic waste into the same pond until it's forcibly stopped from doing so (and the taxpayers are forced to clean it up via Superfund).

Post reply on HN