7 ms·

I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp &

I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow. 3. Once your revenue on ad supported services that are free to end users exceed y million USD, you must make easily available every single usage of the end user's data. Also, user must have right to prohibit any specific type of use of user's data.

slipperymate 9y ago
On points 2 and 3, why limit this to companies with revenue exceeding x or y million USD?
- beefield 9y ago
  To not create unnecessary barriers of entry.
- oehpr 9y ago
  I assume it is specifically to avoid killing startups in the crib.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    If your business model requires that it should be killed in the crib
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Trundle 9y ago
      So current free to user companies just get to hold their market forever? Are you that happy with them?
      - paulie_a 9y ago
        To continue the analogy, they should be euthanized
- amelius 9y ago
  Because it's the same principle we apply to other mass communication providers (i.e. telecom providers). Except there it's based on #users, not revenue.
Ro93 9y ago
#3 sounds like a cool idea, I think knowing how your data is being used is important and allows users to make more informed decisions about how they give their data away. I think #2 is over-regulation, given #3 users can decide if they want to support the product or not by using it. Also, if you deactivate your account companies should no longer be able to use your data.
- beefield 9y ago
  I think we are currently beyond the point where most people actually can choose whether or not to use some services. So I think it would be appropriate to have the option to pay for these services while keeping the privacy.
dalbasal 9y ago
no. 2 is guaranteed cost plus pricing. Quite a lot of fiascos built on that principle. Regulation is harder than it seems. The legal system we use... it just doesn't really work that way. It doesn't fail just because of corruption and such. That said, here's one. Whatever they collect, users can elect to have a copy and easily with a 3rd party. At least that way we could watch them watching us.
- walterbell 9y ago
  Some form of analytics that can report each downstream access.
- beefield 9y ago
  I am confident that facebook makes much more money on the ads it shows me than what is any reasonable margin on the actual cost of serving me the pages and storing my status updates. So in this case this guaranteed cost plus is much less than what facebook currently does.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of last resort. Simpler: for companies with more than X users or Y gross revenues, an American GDPR. Consumers get an absolute right to audit and delete their data. Explicit consent is required for each instance of third-party sharing. Companies are liable to their users for breaches, with a minimum amount directly claimable by users through an easily-accessibly regulator.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? It sounds like what you're describing would be easy to game.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? Size-dependent threshold exist across our tax and regulatory codes. Concepts like beneficial ownership [1] and affiliation [2], amongst others, address these issues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp
- beefield 9y ago
  I agree that I do not exactly like forcing business models to companies. But I think especially facebook and google are currently so difficult to avoid that their users should be given a fair choice on how to pay for their services, with money or with data.
- amluto 9y ago
  Why a size threshold? An American GDPR seems like a fine idea, especially if it’a similar enough to GDPR that complying with one gets the other for free.
krick 9y ago
2. would we an extremely bad law. Even if purely "social" factors will be worked out and we come up with a perfect definition of when and how this should apply — how the fuck do you mean to enforce it? It will make only more trouble and bureaucracy for tech people (I mean actual programmers) with no useful output. Because you cannot realistically enforce it. Data either belongs to somebody, or it doesn't. Either you come up with technological solution for keeping user data secure from anybody including youself (which would be equivalent to not storing it at all, and I'm not sure it's possible for every application), or you make it responsibility of some shady but "reputable" auditors to make sure there's no crime going on, which is a dead end, as even if there's no bribes and conspiracy (which there sure will be), it only passes the responsibility and assumes the end user "trusts" the regulator, the government — well, just "someone else". Which is just silly. Same applies to 3. at some extent. Only 1. may be assumed reasonably (even though still not "easily", as in practice it will just produce more work for lawyers and accountants) transparent for the public.
- cloakandswagger 9y ago
  The original comment said: "[...] with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow." As an "actual programmer" myself, I don't see how that would be so burdensome to implement. The data is somehow segregated so that it's excluded from being sold to advertisers in any form. The user can have their data deleted permanently at any time. It obviously wouldn't prevent someone from authorizing a 3rd party app to all of my Facebook data, but that is more about Facebook educating people about what they're consenting to rather than a philosophical debate about ownership of data.
  - krick 9y ago
    > As an "actual programmer" myself, I don't see how that would be so burdensome to implement Oh, but you will see, when your manager (who doesn't really understand the implications of various technical decisions, by the way) will order you to do something completely meaningless (in your opinion), because the regulatory documents (made by people who understand and care for the implications of technical decisions far, far less than your manager) say something meaningless, contradictory and hard to interpret in the first place. If you aren't familiar with such situation it's probably because you are not working in a regulated industry, not because these things "solve themselves" in practice. No, in practice they don't.
yason 9y ago
Or just make the law so that the customers own their own private details, and not the company. If the company wishes to use private data for anything else than providing service to the customer, it must ask for permission. They can still pick ads based on the private data and personalise the user experience but they can not share or otherwise disclose it to anyone else.

slipperymate 9y ago

On points 2 and 3, why limit this to companies with revenue exceeding x or y million USD?

beefield 9y ago
To not create unnecessary barriers of entry.
oehpr 9y ago
I assume it is specifically to avoid killing startups in the crib.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  If your business model requires that it should be killed in the crib
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Trundle 9y ago
    So current free to user companies just get to hold their market forever? Are you that happy with them?
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      To continue the analogy, they should be euthanized
amelius 9y ago
Because it's the same principle we apply to other mass communication providers (i.e. telecom providers). Except there it's based on #users, not revenue.

Ro93 9y ago

#3 sounds like a cool idea, I think knowing how your data is being used is important and allows users to make more informed decisions about how they give their data away. I think #2 is over-regulation, given #3 users can decide if they want to support the product or not by using it. Also, if you deactivate your account companies should no longer be able to use your data.

beefield 9y ago
I think we are currently beyond the point where most people actually can choose whether or not to use some services. So I think it would be appropriate to have the option to pay for these services while keeping the privacy.

dalbasal 9y ago

no. 2 is guaranteed cost plus pricing. Quite a lot of fiascos built on that principle. Regulation is harder than it seems. The legal system we use... it just doesn't really work that way. It doesn't fail just because of corruption and such. That said, here's one. Whatever they collect, users can elect to have a copy and easily with a 3rd party. At least that way we could watch them watching us.

walterbell 9y ago
Some form of analytics that can report each downstream access.
beefield 9y ago
I am confident that facebook makes much more money on the ads it shows me than what is any reasonable margin on the actual cost of serving me the pages and storing my status updates. So in this case this guaranteed cost plus is much less than what facebook currently does.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of last resort. Simpler: for companies with more than X users or Y gross revenues, an American GDPR. Consumers get an absolute right to audit and delete their data. Explicit consent is required for each instance of third-party sharing. Companies are liable to their users for breaches, with a minimum amount directly claimable by users through an easily-accessibly regulator.

whatshisface 9y ago
What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? It sounds like what you're describing would be easy to game.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? Size-dependent threshold exist across our tax and regulatory codes. Concepts like beneficial ownership [1] and affiliation [2], amongst others, address these issues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp
beefield 9y ago
I agree that I do not exactly like forcing business models to companies. But I think especially facebook and google are currently so difficult to avoid that their users should be given a fair choice on how to pay for their services, with money or with data.
amluto 9y ago
Why a size threshold? An American GDPR seems like a fine idea, especially if it’a similar enough to GDPR that complying with one gets the other for free.

krick 9y ago

2. would we an extremely bad law. Even if purely "social" factors will be worked out and we come up with a perfect definition of when and how this should apply — how the fuck do you mean to enforce it? It will make only more trouble and bureaucracy for tech people (I mean actual programmers) with no useful output. Because you cannot realistically enforce it. Data either belongs to somebody, or it doesn't. Either you come up with technological solution for keeping user data secure from anybody including youself (which would be equivalent to not storing it at all, and I'm not sure it's possible for every application), or you make it responsibility of some shady but "reputable" auditors to make sure there's no crime going on, which is a dead end, as even if there's no bribes and conspiracy (which there sure will be), it only passes the responsibility and assumes the end user "trusts" the regulator, the government — well, just "someone else". Which is just silly. Same applies to 3. at some extent. Only 1. may be assumed reasonably (even though still not "easily", as in practice it will just produce more work for lawyers and accountants) transparent for the public.

cloakandswagger 9y ago
The original comment said: "[...] with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow." As an "actual programmer" myself, I don't see how that would be so burdensome to implement. The data is somehow segregated so that it's excluded from being sold to advertisers in any form. The user can have their data deleted permanently at any time. It obviously wouldn't prevent someone from authorizing a 3rd party app to all of my Facebook data, but that is more about Facebook educating people about what they're consenting to rather than a philosophical debate about ownership of data.
- krick 9y ago
  > As an "actual programmer" myself, I don't see how that would be so burdensome to implement Oh, but you will see, when your manager (who doesn't really understand the implications of various technical decisions, by the way) will order you to do something completely meaningless (in your opinion), because the regulatory documents (made by people who understand and care for the implications of technical decisions far, far less than your manager) say something meaningless, contradictory and hard to interpret in the first place. If you aren't familiar with such situation it's probably because you are not working in a regulated industry, not because these things "solve themselves" in practice. No, in practice they don't.

yason 9y ago

Or just make the law so that the customers own their own private details, and not the company. If the company wishes to use private data for anything else than providing service to the customer, it must ask for permission. They can still pick ads based on the private data and personalise the user experience but they can not share or otherwise disclose it to anyone else.