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

California governor proposes data dividend

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#21

Post by jarjoura »

gabbygab wrote: post #19

This isn't a new idea and though it is interesting and has good intentions, it doesn't solve the problem. As others have pointed out, this will encourage more data collection and less privacy. The exact opposite of what we want. Also, the users are already paid with free service. The problem is that people value the free service more than their data. And companies value the data more than they value the service. The…

That absolutely was true prior to 2016, but now the post Brexit, post populist world has shaken a lot of people up. Before people didn't realize what giving up their data meant, and they still don't, but at least now they are hypersensitive to it. Hyper-targeting used to mean you didn't see ads for things you didn't care about, but now it seems to be a weapon for reaching vulnerable people.

Ads targeting isn't going away, but I'm not so sure a pay to use service wouldn't stand a chance in this current climate.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#23

Post by gfodor »

inetknght wrote: post #2

Paying us for our data won't nearly compensate us for the loss of our democracy. Quite the opposite: it puts an exact price on how cheap that comes about.

People who are using hyperbolic untruths like "Facebook is stealing our democracy" or "your data is being sold" should be warned: non-analytical politicians may introduce regulation framed by these falsehoods. For example, a law regulating that Facebook not tamper in elections or sell user data would be a home run for Facebook, because they have done neither.

Speaking the truth in this instance is both more productive and also should frankly be more scary than the hyperbolic distilled versions that are oft thrown around: mining user data with AI systems to sell products to measurably alter human behavior is an unregulated industry and likely should be.

This "dividend" nonsense is transparently ridiculous since it misses the point of the problem -- that incentives here yield damaging societal effects -- but again, here we see the result of the "Facebook sells your data" meme/falsehood: politicians conclude if they just pay users for the data, the problem is solved, right?

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#24

Post by ucaetano »

cobookman wrote: post #14
velcrovan wrote: post #3

Four years ago I wrote about requiring companies to pass along x% of targeted ad revenue sales to the users: https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-change I still think this is a good strategy for the purpose of snuffing out the incentives for surveillance business models.

We do get x% of targeted ad rev. just isn't passed as USD, and instead paid by giving a free product.

Yep, people here don't seem o understand the concept of barter...

Oh, and wait until you have to declare your "data dividend" in your tax declaration...

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#26

Post by dalbasal »

This kind of echoes what Jaron Lanier has been proposing. I think they get at something true, in terms of moral sentiment, but I don't understand how it would be implmented.

How do you set prices? How does this lead to better incentives and outcomes, rather than a scheme where people can get $4 a year and the industry gets a moral blank cheque.

Currently, our Google & FBs data is being monetized mostly via ad-targetting, or via (for example) optimizing the FB newsfeed algorithim so that you spend more time on FB, where they can put that ad-targetting data to work.

Google's captcha-powered self driving cars demonstrates a point, but at least for now, the value of data is mostly ad-related (or business/political/military/police intelligence, which overlaps with ad-targetting in worrying ways).

Paying consumers to be advertized to ... isn't that a black mirror premise?

As of now, I'm more inclined to the "make-the-data-public" direction. For democracy concerns, for example, it would be valuable if the public could

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#27

Post by gabbygab »

jarjoura wrote: post #21
gabbygab wrote: post #19

This isn't a new idea and though it is interesting and has good intentions, it doesn't solve the problem. As others have pointed out, this will encourage more data collection and less privacy. The exact opposite of what we want. Also, the users are already paid with free service. The problem is that people value the free service more than their data. And companies value the data more than they value the service. The…

That absolutely was true prior to 2016, but now the post Brexit, post populist world has shaken a lot of people up. Before people didn't realize what giving up their data meant, and they still don't, but at least now they are hypersensitive to it. Hyper-targeting used to mean you didn't see ads for things you didn't care about, but now it seems to be a weapon for reaching vulnerable people. Ads targeting isn't going…

Good point. It's always possible that a paradigm shift can change the culture and open up the landscape to paid services. But from a purely anecdotal perspective I'm not seeing the paradigm shift. Instead, I'm seeing the opposite. People are made aware of the privacy violation and data collection and almost welcome it. They don't care if they are constantly monitored as long as they can find the nearest starbucks on their smartphones. Just my experience. but I'd welcome paid services and simply more competition. The centralization and domination of tech spaces by a handful of companies is something we all should be worried about.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#28

Post by velcrovan »

cobookman wrote: post #14
velcrovan wrote: post #3

Four years ago I wrote about requiring companies to pass along x% of targeted ad revenue sales to the users: https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-change I still think this is a good strategy for the purpose of snuffing out the incentives for surveillance business models.

We do get x% of targeted ad rev. just isn't passed as USD, and instead paid by giving a free product.

Right, and I would like to force it to be passed as USD whatever else happens.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#29

Post by dalbasal »

ilovecaching wrote: post #20

Honestly this is just political blame shifting, virtue signaling, and more empty promises of handouts in the face of California's disastrous finances. California takes more taxes than practically any other state to fund failed infrastructure projects, all the while allowing sky high rents in the SF, LA, and SD areas because the government is locked down by rich landlords protecting their investments. Not to mention t…

For the sake of discussion, lets focus on the idea itself, whatever the motiviations of the politician who's saying it.

>> Users are already getting value for their data - the product showing the ads. People have a choice in whether they want to use gmail and get a free best-in-class email client, backend storage, and worldwide access to their email. The trade is that they're participating in an ad platform that

FB are currently earning $50b pa from advertising, which is largely premised on FB's data collection on and off the platform. What users get is, by-and-large, very similar to what they were getting in 2012, when FB was making $5bn. That 10X increase in revenue (and 10X increase in FB staff/cost) hasn't gone towards making more/better product. It has gone towards making better (often more creepy) ad-tech.

At least with television there is competition, and that means ad revenue has to go towards making more/better programming.

SAAS has negligible marginal cost and often strong network effects. The value of an ad-platform and many uses of data (especially ad-targetting) also scales exponentially. This is leading to bad, monopolistic outcomes.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#30

Post by r00fus »

yumraj wrote: post #18

I agree with a lot of posts below. However, my absolutely biggest worry is that it will allow these companies to get even more personally identifying information about the user than they probably have today since they will have to compensate them monetarily. For example, they will/may start asking for address, phone number, real DoB and SSN for tax reporting purposes since this would be an income. If I have multiple…

> For example, they will/may start asking for address, phone number, real DoB and SSN for tax reporting purposes since this would be an income.

As I see it Hertzberg's proposal that Newsom announced would be the state collecting on behalf of the recipient. I would hope this could be done without providing identifying information.

The alternative proposal that companies pay users directly for their data is the one we should be wary of, as you're correct - companies would need your info to pay you. It was put in the article as a byline but didn't have any supporting commentary.

Post reply on HN