5 ms·

I get that, I just think the assumption that people are willing to sell their privacy data for petty cash is flawed. It’s not like traditional advertising haven

I get that, I just think the assumption that people are willing to sell their privacy data for petty cash is flawed. It’s not like traditional advertising haven’t tried similar approaches, and failed, largely because petty cash is a terrible motivator for most people. I guess you could argue that it’s different with crypto because your data is safer, but facebook has a billion users, and the people who’ve been doing the whole #deletefacebook thing, just signed up for Instagram instead. People really don’t care. Would you sell your data for $5 a month? Maybe $15? I wouldn’t, especially not if it took time to setup and maintain, and I have a gmail account.

matt4077 8y ago
Plus: the people willing to sell their data for $5/month are absolutely worthless as advertising targets.
- 1996 8y ago
  On the other hand, the intersection of these "people who want to sell for $5" to the general population gives some worthy targets!
notahacker 8y ago
I think there are plenty of people who are sufficiently unconcerned about privacy data to sell it for $xx per month. I also think this set of people has literally no overlap with the set of people who care about whether the data broker is centralised or not or whether it's possible to obtain cryptographic proof of which entities have received the data
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
leppr 8y ago
If I didn't have to worry about security, yes. So a system that sold my data for me while keeping it private, I would use. Same deal with AI assistants or Facebook-like social networks, I would use them if there was a way to check that they don't leak data. I believe cryptography will open these advances to huge untapped demographics.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  You can already sell your data though, and almost nobody bothers to do so. I don’t think it’s the privacy bit that’s stopping people, at least not at large, I think it’s time. $5 is a drop in the ocean to me, I’d just never bother giving you my data for that little, even if my data were safe. The reason I willingly give my data to google by using gmail is that they give me an easy to use cloud mail with decent spamfilters. Or in other words, they are saving me time. Maybe you could offer me something other than money? Like financial statistics on how I use my money? Sure, but those apps are already here, and people are willingly giving away their data without privacy in those. So you see, it’s not that I don’t think you can’t convince people to give up their data, I absolutely do think that you can, I just don’t think petty cash and privacy are good motivators.
  - leppr 8y ago
    Maybe you have a bias because of your favorable financial situation (which is normal in here). For most people in the world, a reliable $10/month to cover their Netflix subscription or buy them a meal would be something they'd be very happy about. Also I think the reason you willingly give data to Google for Gmail is that you don't have a choice. It's take-it-all, the spam filters and the data mining, or leave it and use ProtonMail, no in-between.
    - gaius 8y ago
      For most people in the world, a reliable $10/month to cover their Netflix subscription or buy them a meal would be something they'd be very happy about. Your personal data has a cash value only because it can be used to influence future purchasing decisions. It's a simple equation, $x worth of personal data has a y% chance of generating sales worth >$x. It therefore stands to reason that the market value of the personal data of a person who doesn't have as much purchasing power will be less, and may not even cover the cost of stealing and then processing it.
    - eksemplar 8y ago
      You’re right, I’m rich enough that $5 a month is very little to me. Those $5 a month were something I grasped out of thin air though. If you look at Facebook advertising revenue, they are making less than $3 a year per account. Would you also sell your data for $3 a year?

matt4077 8y ago

Plus: the people willing to sell their data for $5/month are absolutely worthless as advertising targets.

1996 8y ago
On the other hand, the intersection of these "people who want to sell for $5" to the general population gives some worthy targets!

notahacker 8y ago

I think there are plenty of people who are sufficiently unconcerned about privacy data to sell it for $xx per month. I also think this set of people has literally no overlap with the set of people who care about whether the data broker is centralised or not or whether it's possible to obtain cryptographic proof of which entities have received the data

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

leppr 8y ago

If I didn't have to worry about security, yes. So a system that sold my data for me while keeping it private, I would use. Same deal with AI assistants or Facebook-like social networks, I would use them if there was a way to check that they don't leak data. I believe cryptography will open these advances to huge untapped demographics.

eksemplar 8y ago
You can already sell your data though, and almost nobody bothers to do so. I don’t think it’s the privacy bit that’s stopping people, at least not at large, I think it’s time. $5 is a drop in the ocean to me, I’d just never bother giving you my data for that little, even if my data were safe. The reason I willingly give my data to google by using gmail is that they give me an easy to use cloud mail with decent spamfilters. Or in other words, they are saving me time. Maybe you could offer me something other than money? Like financial statistics on how I use my money? Sure, but those apps are already here, and people are willingly giving away their data without privacy in those. So you see, it’s not that I don’t think you can’t convince people to give up their data, I absolutely do think that you can, I just don’t think petty cash and privacy are good motivators.
- leppr 8y ago
  Maybe you have a bias because of your favorable financial situation (which is normal in here). For most people in the world, a reliable $10/month to cover their Netflix subscription or buy them a meal would be something they'd be very happy about. Also I think the reason you willingly give data to Google for Gmail is that you don't have a choice. It's take-it-all, the spam filters and the data mining, or leave it and use ProtonMail, no in-between.
  - gaius 8y ago
    For most people in the world, a reliable $10/month to cover their Netflix subscription or buy them a meal would be something they'd be very happy about. Your personal data has a cash value only because it can be used to influence future purchasing decisions. It's a simple equation, $x worth of personal data has a y% chance of generating sales worth >$x. It therefore stands to reason that the market value of the personal data of a person who doesn't have as much purchasing power will be less, and may not even cover the cost of stealing and then processing it.
  - eksemplar 8y ago
    You’re right, I’m rich enough that $5 a month is very little to me. Those $5 a month were something I grasped out of thin air though. If you look at Facebook advertising revenue, they are making less than $3 a year per account. Would you also sell your data for $3 a year?