In a weird way, this would be a regressive policy -- the data of the richest people is worth orders of magnitude more, so this would just make the rich, well, richer. Increasing corporate tax rates would help the poor much more.
Really depends how you measure the value of data. Rich people being served ads is more valuable, but the targeting algorithms probably churn on all the data at large. I imagine given Yang's history he'd argue for the latter and cut a flat fee to everyone like they do in Alaska for oil.
>It's outright dystopian when you need to organize a social media campaign to get medical treatment. The above comment wasn't an example of that, though. His friend was getting medical treatment, the issue is that you can't just buy a kidney (at least not in the US), you need to find a donor.
exactly, even in a situation where medical is all paid for you still have to find a donor yourself. There are countries where you can get a donor via "alternative" means but when going by the book, finding a donor is on you. I cant think of any other way he could have gotten exposure without having to go on tv, radio, public areas and making his case. That power of facebook ( and other social media is undeniable ) Ev…
The fact that you need public exposure to find a donor is the problem, not the solution. Going to social media doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to find a donor. Worse, you could be targeted by online scammers and trolls, which is the last thing you want in a difficult situation.
> 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.
True, I looked it up and per quarter it was maybe $30 in the US per quarter per big ad-tech company. A digital VAT would be easier to reason about IMO, but this idea of handing money directly to people has some populist appeal I suspect.
Personally I much rather preferred his original plan to fund a UBI with consumption taxes, but I suppose the primary voters weren't bought into that plan.
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…
You say this like people won't get paychecks from many different companies and that checks will be extremely difficult to get.
This whole thing is essentially credit card points. These credit card companies pay you for the purchase data in the form on points. And the detail from those purchases is nothing compared to what FB and others would have.
If there is a pay option, you could just pay for searches. You set the price threshold by choosing to pay a la carte (or not.)
Google did have a contributor program for a while which replaced ads when you paid them and they in turn paid the websites and services you visited. My guess is the advertisers weren't happy to be cut out of the loop.
Right, so (and not to make Google look like the good guy here) we just need this new law to tip the scales so the advertisers won't be able to convince Google not to do this.
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 v…
My data is mine; as the seller, I can price the data about me at any value I want, that doesn’t mean that someone will buy it. If Facebook comes along and takes my data for less than I’m selling it, that’s called theft, and it’s a crime.
The people on HN, especially those who use Facebook regularly, are worth on average _significanty_ more than $17 to the company per year. It’s hard to remember, the average person makes $X,000 globally and Facebook has a huge % of the planet on their platform. HN users make in the upper echelon of wages, and are comfortable with their computers and online shopping.
In the current political environment I can easily imagine the flame bath Facebook would take if it paid out proportionally to the value of the user and this truth was baldly revealed to the public. Don't expect Facebook to take this route. If there's going to be any sort of "per user" pay out made by the ad companies, expect it to be a flat fee.
> and this truth was baldly revealed to the public.
It's completely impossible that it wouldn't be revealed to the public, and every possible take on it will be published. All it would take is a few people posting the amounts they received, which is definitely going to happen.
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…
>Your entire data load might be worth $100 a year.
Then give it to me if no one cares. I don't want my personal information bought and sold.
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 v…
When you're getting something for free, you sell it for cheap