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

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

#281

Post by jlbnjmn » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

richardw wrote: post #198

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…

Very good chance most of the money is made from very few people. If you got a cut of money from advertisers targeting you, my guess is it’s be quite a bit over 5 bucks. Especially in an election year.

Yeah $5 is the cost of a couple clicks or scrolling past 200-300 ads.

On Google that's maybe one click, probably half a click.

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

#282

Post by alwaysdoit » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

fistfucker3000 wrote: post #265

alwaysdoit wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not making an ideological assumptions there. I'm just referring to the status quo. The proposals I've seen are along the lines of "let's ban or add obstacles to advertising-based models", not "let's build a publicly funded Google search". I'm not saying the latter is an impossibility, but it's a much larger undertaking, and if you do the former without the latter, the effect will be as I said above--the poor lose access.

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

#283

Post by windycity123 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

What is interesting is that in essence, our data is the payment that we make to use facebook, instagram etc.... So if companies are now taxed on data or required to pay people for the right to use their data this would seriously alter incentives which would also change the content that we, the users, have access to. These companies will not have the incentive to provide the same quality content and product as their profits have been slashed. Data is also used not to just send targeted ads but to conduct beta testing and software updates. Without access to free data, Facebook would start charging people for having an account and I'm sure many would rather not do that. This basically got me to thinking about how consumers can get a greater hold of their data without dismantling the relationship between these consumers and online platforms.

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

#284

Post by shrimpx » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #166

shrimpx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gap in your reasoning is the assumption that giving them your data is an exact and fair payment in exchange for using their service. We actually have no idea how much data is worth, because these companies have created a culture that simply takes data from you. There is no market. Isn’t that convenient for facebook and google?

For those who are comfortable sharing their data, it is a fair payment by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Especially because Google has alternatives that you're not forced into.

The issue is that people generally don’t think “I’m using this in exchange for google recording and selling my data”. They mostly think it’s free. My dad mostly thinks it’s free, mostly because he believes in the law and doesn’t think google would be allowed to do nefarious things.

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

#285

Post by sanderjd » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #209

asciident wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

The person you're replying to spoke directly to this by saying they want those services not merely for free, but for free with personalized ads. That is, by just saying "for free", you are removing an important part of the context. I suspect they would also sign up for a service that offered a mansion, butlers, a private jet, etc. for free with personalized ads, if anybody were offering such a thing.

I'm personally in the boat of preferring to pay for things that are important to me and hope to see more movement over time to subscription business models that work, but it does not make sense to write off people who want the opposite, who prefer to get things for free with personalized ads. The revealed preference in society seems to be that there are a lot more people who feel that way than people who prefer to pay for subscriptions. These people aren't just being duped, everybody knows how free services work because it is a very frequent and well publicized topic of conversation, it's just that they are ok or even happy with it.

I think what happens a lot, because I think it's what I experience personally very often, is that when we find ourselves with a minority opinion that we really think is right, that we conclude the majority with a different opinion from ours is just ignorant or being manipulated. But in reality, they are often just as knowledgeable as we are, but have simply drawn different conclusions. Speaking personally, this is always a bitter pill to swallow.

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

#286

Post by asciident » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 6:05 AM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #209

asciident wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

Yes, and thanks for cutting off the part of my sentence that backs it up. So Google it yourself.

> If no one wants to pay for it, it's unwanted.

It seems like you are not aware of business models besides directly paying for a product/service at sale.

> 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.

Yes, and? Thanks for mansplaining a cliche that everyone's already heard.

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

#287

Post by JetSpiegel » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

ses1984 wrote: post #277

kmkemp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opting out would then require trusting an organization who is incentivized to collect data to not collect it. That can't be the solution.

If you don't trust them, don't give them your data or your money. Of course all this would be predicated on trust and a government that would actually use teeth if fraud was committed. Hah.

> If you don't trust them, don't give them your data or your money.

I already don't, but they still build a shadow profile of me with the data my friends and friends of friends leak.

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

#288

Post by grok22 » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 1:53 AM UTC

awillen wrote: post #114

grok22 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google charged for the same services instead of providing it for free, would they make the same amount of billions? I assume everyone would agree that they would make way less. So the exchange in value is asymmetric and it still sort-of makes sense that you get some money for the outsize value that your personal details represents to them.

What's wrong with that, though? That's the essence of a lot of business - I take something with a certain amount of value to you and find a way to make it more valuable to someone else, then I capture the value I added along the way. The guy who sells flour to the baker isn't getting cheated because the baker can sell the flour for more than he pays for it once he puts it into a cake.

Nothing wrong with that, but likewise, what is wrong with trying to make money off of Google making money off of your information? At some-point, if the asymmetry is so large, it does make sense to try and capitalize on that.