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

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 288 posts

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

#201

Post by qeternity »

rojobuffalo wrote: post #168
qeternity wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

BS. paying for internet products with personal data is nothing like a financial transaction at a store. money is a uniform unit; personal data is not that. Those of us who are well-aware of data harvesting still forget about it all the time; it isn't at the forefront of our attention when we're shopping on Amazon or watching videos on Youtube. at a store you pull money out of your wallet, all the elements of the exch…

What did I say that was BS? Your entire comment is completely orthogonal to mine.

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

#202

Post by qeternity »

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.

Facebook has revenues of $70b where are you getting $3/yr??

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

#203

Post by qeternity »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #154
qeternity wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

So we're bartering with Google. There are a couple problems with this that I can see. First, given that the transaction is not exchanged using dollars, we don't know if we are getting ripped off. One of the useful signals that money sends is uniform price discovery. Maybe we as consumers are leaving a lot of money on the table. Second, it's a gray economy that escapes taxation. If Google can conduct a significant fra…

What do you mean “ripped off”? Do you mean you don’t know what Google sells it for? It doesn’t matter, that’s not how trade works. If you’d rather trade your data for free email, search, messaging, etc then you’re not being ripped off.

You don’t walk around all day evaluating the rest of your purchases based on COGS, you do it based on the value you receive in return.

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

#204

Post by SuoDuanDao »

saalweachter wrote: post #135
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…

So if the goal is to discourage wide-scale collection of data without making it illegal , or at least to ensure that we benefit collectively from it, there's a much more obvious model, which is taxation. It's much easier to administer, and you end up with real money to do something with, instead of buying everyone a drink. Tax any company collecting, storing and analyzing user data some small amount, say, $1 or $0.1…

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

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

#205

Post by balfirevic »

chillacy wrote: post #118
baron816 wrote: post #51

Why would you pay for something people are giving you for free? If people are volunteering that information, I think it’s fine to use it to finance the free product they’re getting. I’m totally free to not use Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

> If people are volunteering that information Given the articles and comments I've read in the past year, I don't think a lot of people are exactly thrilled with the exchange. Outside of HN I think there's some feeling of unfairness to see so much money being made off "our data", for better or worse. It's complicated because the data isn't worth much until it's processed and analyzed, and that's where much of the val…

> It's complicated because the data isn't worth much until it's processed and analyzed, and that's where much of the value-add is

It isn't worth much, per user, even after it's processed and analyzed.

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

#206

Post by alwaysdoit »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #150
alwaysdoit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only give premium services to the most valuable users? Almost certainly. What people often miss in this discussion is that advertising is progressive--it's a transfer of value from richer people who can and will pay for both the service being used and the product that is being advertised to poorer people who cannot.

By convincing them to buy shit they don't need. Very progressive.

You can have a condescending attitude about it if you want, but the reality is advertising-backed business models make services available to people who would not otherwise be able to afford them.

The ramifications of creating barriers to advertising is ultimately taking these services away from the poor.

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

#207

Post by rojobuffalo »

qeternity wrote: post #201
rojobuffalo wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BS. paying for internet products with personal data is nothing like a financial transaction at a store. money is a uniform unit; personal data is not that. Those of us who are well-aware of data harvesting still forget about it all the time; it isn't at the forefront of our attention when we're shopping on Amazon or watching videos on Youtube. at a store you pull money out of your wallet, all the elements of the exch…

What did I say that was BS? Your entire comment is completely orthogonal to mine.

i don't mean "BS" with venom aimed at you. but you equated a cash transaction at a store to data commodification by internet companies.

data commodification is very materially different from exchanging a currency for a physical good; and i think it's wrong to lose that distinction with a metaphor that's too simplistic.

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

#208

Post by radomysisky »

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.

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

#209

Post by arghwhat »

asciident wrote: post #192
arghwhat wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> neither would 99% of users. That sort of statement requires data to back it up. > would you be willing to subsidize the other 99% That would just mean that facebook is an unwanted and unprofitable service which then wouldn't exist. Which is not a problem at all.

> That sort of statement requires data to back it up. On other social media websites that offer "pay to remove ads" versus "get personalized ads", like Reddit or Twitch, about 1% of users pay. Wikipedia asks for donations and very few people donate, percentage-wise. So I think if you want to show a substantially higher number, say even 10%, you'll need to provided evidence. Even if 10% of users paid, would they be wi…

> On other social media websites

That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

> I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion, that it's unwanted. I want Facebook, and I want it for free

If no one wants to pay for it, it's unwanted. I'm sure you'd also want a mansion, butlers, a private jet, etc. for free. That you want something for free means nothing, and is entirely irrelevant.

Facebook in its current form also doesn't care about what you want. They care about how they can please their paying customers, with you being one of their many products they can sell.

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

#210

Post by darawk »

dTal wrote: post #151
jerf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Revenue per user is a very misleading way to evaluate the value when talking about a hyper-global operation." It doesn't matter, because there's no way to torture the data until "the amount of money that Facebook can afford to remit to its users for giving them their data" is going to be anything significant. They can't afford anything "per user" or any significant number of users. If it were, say, $500 dollars a ye…

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. Deciding how much a user…

> 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 value what has been extracted from them, though? Facebook is in a better position to value it than anyone: they're selling it. What people are willing to pay them for it is literally its value. I don't really see how you can decide that the value of the data is greater than what Facebook is extracting from it. If it were, they'd be charging that much.

Post reply on HN