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

261–270 of 288 posts

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

#261

Post by Nasrudith »

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 is certainly an emotion alright and not a rational one.

A lot of it is - expecting a pony with their can of coke while not considering such arrangements now mean thousands of dollars per can and a massive reserve of ponies outside every vendor.

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

#262

Post by Nasrudith »

AlexandrB wrote: post #100
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.

I would like you to explain to me how you could avoid using Google given that Google Analytics is present in some 70% of the top 10,000 websites and reCaptcha also has huge penetration.

Simple use a DNS that blocks them. It will break many things but nobody said it was free.

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

#263

Post by waholleyiv »

qeternity wrote: post #77
fragmede wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By adding payouts into the mix, companies become incentivized to not sell your data if it's not material to them. I go to the store, I buy something. Transaction over. The idea that the store tracks the shit out of me when I'm in the store is creepy enough. I can accept that ship has sailed since I'm in their store. That the store turns around and makes money off of that browsing data so Facebook can sell me ads for…

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.

If I walk into a store and make no purchase creates no value for the store. Visiting a website with a Facebook tracker (21.9% of the web) and making no purchase creates value for Facebook.

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

#265

Post by fistfucker3000 »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #206
skummetmaelk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Within that statement is an ideological assumption that the only way to provide services to people is through a for profit venture. We worship market based solutions except we have things like taxes to build public infrastructure without a profit motive.

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

#266

Post by blackrock »

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…

Maybe it should be some kind of lottery instead?

Everyone who logs on gets a ticket. It follows some type of grading scale. Bigger revenue generators earns more tickets. Only individuals are allowed to win, no businesses.

Maybe Facebook’s goal can be to give away $1 Billion dollars a year, divided into $1 Million jackpots. Thus, 1,000 people a year can win it. Over 10 years, and you possibly have 10,000 winners.

And maybe you have to meet a certain income or wealth criteria to win the jackpot? Otherwise, you only win a smaller jackpot. You don’t really want all the big influencers and wealthy to take all the money.

$5/year is irrelevant. But $1 Million, this might be more interesting. And force the IRS to tax-exempt the winnings. The goal is to transfer wealth to the less-privileged, to help rectify the inequality of the capitalistic system.

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

#267

Post by rorykoehler »

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…

They should pay it out in stock

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

#268

Post by rorykoehler »

chris123 wrote: post #143
jerf wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see a 1cent/impression tax, personally. It would consolidate the market, sure, but it would very nearly destroy it, too. The resulting Google and Facebook left behind wouldn't be left with so many resources to be anti-social with. Internalize the externalities.

Only tax the biggest players?

Tax applies to all companies with $1B + revenues?

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

#269

Post by pmoriarty »

darawk wrote: post #251
thechao wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you can price it however you want. And you do. You are in control of whether and when to give away your data. If you use Facebook, you are trading your data for their services.

Well, except that Facebook will collect data on you even if you're not using their services.

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

#270

Post by drivebycomment »

jszymborski wrote: post #141

There are too many perverse incentives here. You end up with the most vulnerable people further their vulnerability. What we really need is a data tax. The more data you collect, the more taxes you need to pay. You can even index it against company income and have a lower data tax bracket for small start-ups and a higher data tax bracket for large orgs. User data needs to be treated as a liability, not an asset.

I think this is the right framing. Treat user data like pollution. If you leak it or accidentally share with others, put a big enough fine. Have strict rules around safe procedures and handling of the data, and sanction companies for violating them. Make the cost of keeping data high enough that they would stop frivolous collections.
Post reply on HN