141–150 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, this also means that they can charge users $3/mo (just to be safe) and be at least as successful as they are now, but without all the spying and manipulation. Unfortunately that will also put a cap on their profits, so it's unlikely they'll do that.
There's also precedent for companies charging users and still also making money off their data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
I can write down in my notepad right now:
s73v3r_ - thumb sucker
This is absolute nonsense and dangerous to boot. Facebook's ARPU is still less than $20/year. If they literally paid all of their profits directly to their user it would still be a pittance. The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all. Talking about the value of the data in purely economic terms is exactly the way you would w…
However, this also means that they can charge users $3/mo (just to be safe) and be at least as successful as they are now, but without all the spying and manipulation. Unfortunately that will also put a cap on their profits, so it's unlikely they'll do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I suppose you have your own definition for "perfectly rational" that you're standing by, and that's fine. But I fail to see the point. How is that relevant to this thread?
I originally posted that people wouldn't use these web services if they didn't receive some benefit from it, and you've done nothing more than present red herrings.
This is absolute nonsense and dangerous to boot. Facebook's ARPU is still less than $20/year. If they literally paid all of their profits directly to their user it would still be a pittance. The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all. Talking about the value of the data in purely economic terms is exactly the way you would w…
I'll never understand why I can't pay Google and Facebook $20 to $50 per year to simply respect my privacy and not give me advertisements. I can't imagine they make more than this off my viewing behaviour (especially as I use adblock)
Count me in. I subscribe to YT Red as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, this also means that they can charge users $3/mo (just to be safe) and be at least as successful as they are now, but without all the spying and manipulation. Unfortunately that will also put a cap on their profits, so it's unlikely they'll do that.
That's assuming their userbase is a lot less elastic than it probably is. They'd have to retain at least half of their current users in order for that to even come close to replacing current revenue. The reason these pay-with-your-privacy businesses are so successful is because charging actual money is a huge barrier that will drive away many customers.
This is absolute nonsense and dangerous to boot. Facebook's ARPU is still less than $20/year. If they literally paid all of their profits directly to their user it would still be a pittance. The real value of privacy has to do with freedom, manipulation and surveillance, and that is not represented by economic measures at all. Talking about the value of the data in purely economic terms is exactly the way you would w…
Facebook is probably going to hit $100+ ARPU in the US + Canada for fiscal 2018. It was $85.41 for 2017. It was $27.76 in Q4, and $21.20 in Q3 (for the US + Canada). It's not implausible that it'll eventually hit $200 per year in the US + Canada. For fun, here's their quarterly ARPU over the last few years in the US+CA, starting from 1Q15, excluding all Q4 results (Q4 skews because it spikes): $8.32, $9.30, $10.49, $…
There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means. It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed…
If you collect data about me in the EU, I have legal control over that data. I can order you to give it to me. I can order you to delete it.
Sounds like ownership to me.
There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means. It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed…
To be fair, modern privacy laws blur the same lines. If you collect data about me in the EU, I have legal control over that data. I can order you to give it to me. I can order you to delete it. Sounds like ownership to me.
Sure, the EU has essentially asserted in law that you own your data. That doesn't really make it true though.
I don't even think the EU was really addressing the moral/ethical nature of data with that law, politicians just wanted a way to remove defamatory content from the internet so they could regain control of their public image.
Just because something makes it into law doesn't mean it's reasonable/accurate/moral/just. In fact, I would argue most laws are created based on a groups narrow desire to achieve an immediate effect in the current society. Few laws are created with genuine exploration of larger implications on society/morality, and even fewer laws are created in the context of rights/what the government can/cant't control.