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

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#31

Post by ilovecaching »

dalbasal wrote: post #29
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 a…

That's an incredible selective way to look at it. Google search has almost no competition. Social media has Snapchat, Twitter, TikTok, and there's really not a huge bar to entry. New social media apps rise all the time. It's also your opinion that their product hasn't improved over time, and your conjecture that that's where the money is going.

Also in television there is much less competition. The TelCos are the worst monopolies out there. Getting a competitive cable or ISP landscape is a laughable idea in the US.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#32

Post by nkrisc »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11
nkrisc wrote: post #9

Good idea, bad implementation. This will legitimize and validate the data collection and nothing else will change. Will there be even less incentive for companies to secure the data they're collecting because we'd already have been paid for it? What should be targeted is how this data is: collected, secured, and used. Throwing a few dollars our way each year solves nothing.

> This will legitimize and validate the data collection Such data collection practices are core to the business models of some of the most valuable companies on the planet. "Google does it" provides far more social proof for diluting one's users' privacy than "a California digital privacy law acknowledges it exists."

I agree with you. Both things can be true.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#33

Post by KorematsuFred »

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…

Fully agreed. This is no more in ideas space vs a rogue single party communist state engaging in policy wanking and pandering to the worst elements in society while pretending to be helping the poor. This is a state where politicians work actively to protect the interests of richest rich while screwing up actually productive people.

I hope Google, Facebook and others will develop a diversification strategy and move out of this shithole.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#34

Post by usrusr »

sbhn wrote: post #4

Before a company will pay you for your data, you will need to prove beyond doubt your identity, by providing that company with all the id and data you have. “Sorry, you havn’t provided enough data to validate your ID yet”, is the get out clause in that business model. The journey to hell, is paved with good intentions, and there are preists all along the way telling you which way it is.

That's an incredibly good point. Good enough actually to inspire a modest little conspiracy theory in my head that it's actually a disguised push from the data giants.

Another serious counterargument: when a company is making billions from billions of users, how much could one reasonably expect? Revenue per unique user is tiny.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#35

Post by wutbrodo »

gnode wrote: post #15

I think morally it's the wrong direction, much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects. That said, putting a price on data may be what it takes to make companies take privacy and security seriously, simply because it might make it easier to argue standing in a lawsuit where data is leaked or mishandled. Similarly, putting a price on life seems insen…

> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects

Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#36

Post by smileysteve »

wutbrodo wrote: post #35
gnode wrote: post #15

I think morally it's the wrong direction, much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects. That said, putting a price on data may be what it takes to make companies take privacy and security seriously, simply because it might make it easier to argue standing in a lawsuit where data is leaked or mishandled. Similarly, putting a price on life seems insen…

> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

I would say that the reparations are not morally reprehensible, as they are paying for damage already done. Unless of course, a company makes a decision that harms people, animals accounting for future reparations.

In the case of the dividend to pollute, you force people to choose between money/power/economy and them/their children having cancers and birth defects.

This is perhaps where the analogy breaks; ignoring DNA and credit, data may lack cross generational effects.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#37

Post by jdmichal »

wutbrodo wrote: post #35
gnode wrote: post #15

I think morally it's the wrong direction, much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects. That said, putting a price on data may be what it takes to make companies take privacy and security seriously, simply because it might make it easier to argue standing in a lawsuit where data is leaked or mishandled. Similarly, putting a price on life seems insen…

> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

Not OP, but this is how I see it. It's a bit like the daycare late fines experiment:

https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine...

Here's a digestible Freakonomics bit which discusses the same:

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what...

When there was not a price on being late, the price paid was actually moral. That is, being late was a bad thing to do and so you should feel bad. However, when a monetary price was introduced, it was no longer morally bad to be late, as long as you paid the fee. The monetary-price replaced the moral-price, and it ended up that there were a lot of people willing to pay money where they weren't willing to pay morally. And so the truancy rate rose with introduction of late fees.

I would guess that that is what OP meant. If you introduce a price, you can actually remove even stronger restrictions that are in place based on morality. Because as long as you're being charged, you can assume the price is inclusive of your moral hazard.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#38

Post by wutbrodo »

jdmichal wrote: post #37
wutbrodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

Not OP, but this is how I see it. It's a bit like the daycare late fines experiment: https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine... Here's a digestible Freakonomics bit which discusses the same: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what... When there was not a price on being late, the price paid was actually moral. That is, being late was a bad thing to do and so you should feel ba…

I'm not sure it makes sense to model companies as moral agents in the same way you would individuals, especially when you're talking about unintuitive moral reasoning that leans heavily on individual feeling, like the Haifa daycare study. Hell, I thought it was a pretty common belief around here (and more broadly) to model corporations as amoral utility-maximizers, in which case a fine is the central way of aligning incentives (for non-criminal actions).

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#39

Post by gnode »

wutbrodo wrote: post #38
jdmichal wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but this is how I see it. It's a bit like the daycare late fines experiment: https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine... Here's a digestible Freakonomics bit which discusses the same: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what... When there was not a price on being late, the price paid was actually moral. That is, being late was a bad thing to do and so you should feel ba…

I'm not sure it makes sense to model companies as moral agents in the same way you would individuals, especially when you're talking about unintuitive moral reasoning that leans heavily on individual feeling, like the Haifa daycare study. Hell, I thought it was a pretty common belief around here (and more broadly) to model corporations as amoral utility-maximizers, in which case a fine is the central way of aligning…

Even when modelling corporations as amoral entities, they still exist within a morally aware system. They are to some extent beholden to their customers, employees, and courts of law, which all make decisions of morality about their actions.

A dividend (or similar payment) generally improves the legitimacy of an action, whereas being fined for it does not.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#40

Post by gnode »

smileysteve wrote: post #36
wutbrodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

I would say that the reparations are not morally reprehensible, as they are paying for damage already done. Unless of course, a company makes a decision that harms people, animals accounting for future reparations. In the case of the dividend to pollute, you force people to choose between money/power/economy and them/their children having cancers and birth defects. This is perhaps where the analogy breaks; ignoring D…

> Unless of course, a company makes a decision that harms people, animals accounting for future reparations.

To clarify, I was suggesting this case; that a company deliberately starts or continues a business which physiologically harms people, whereby these people are compensated as an ongoing cost of doing business, as opposed to a fine for desisted wrongdoing.

That is, I think, a truer analogy to what is being proposed with this data dividend. Granted, it breaks down at congenital disorders.

Post reply on HN