3 ms·
If the museum waived the entry fees for users that opted into a having their info tracked and the data monetized there are probably people who would prefer to c
by manfredo 8y ago
If the museum waived the entry fees for users that opted into a having their info tracked and the data monetized there are probably people who would prefer to compensate the museum that way. It'd probably open up access to the museum to poorer people that couldn't afford the ticket. Heck, I'd probably do it. My contact info has almost certainly been collected already, so for me it's basically instant savings. Your main criticism is that the data collection is undisclosed. I'm sure there's debate to be had over whether Facebook was transparent about it's data collection, but they always did tell users about it in some capacity.
How much would Facebook cost if users has to pay cash? I think the Economist did a survey on this topic with Google search and the average price people were willing to pay was $1,500 a year. If Google switched from monetizing user data and advertising to charging money, how much human productivity would be lost because some people can't afford a good search engine? How much would this exacerbate academic difficulties of poorer student if we add the fact that their classmates can search online information more effectively because their parents can afford Google search?
The lack of tangibility of paying for products with personal data instead of money can be irksome, but it has created an unprecedented ability to build large, complex services while delivering them free of (monetary) cost to the end user.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoThat might be the average price Economist readers would pay. I suspect it would be a lot lower for most users. That aside - FB never gave users that choice. Where many media services - including AOL, streaming media companies, and newspapers (and the Economist) survive by charging a subscription, FB has never attempted to use that business model. Why? Because FB has always been a data harvesting and user monitoring/profiling operation that happens to operate a social media front, rather than vice versa. Ditto Google for search. And "telling users about it in some capacity" is very different to giving users a list of buyers and full details describing what their personal data was used for. Realistically, no one outside the industry - and not that many people in the industry - understand where this data ends up and what it's used for. Pretending otherwise is casuistry and special pleading. There is no way users can estimate the true value of their data, either individually or in aggregate - because the value is determined by buyers who remain hidden and unnamed, and neither FB nor the buyers are obliged to explain any part of the process. There is no informed consent here. It's a perfect corporate asymmetry, and very much designed that way.
- manfredo 8y agoFacebook probably would charge users directly if it were acceptable to do so. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the optics around providing that choice would be even worse than not providing that choice at all. People would portray this as akin to racketeering, making users cough up the dough if they don't want to be tracked. Ironically, concern over Facebook's data collection inhibits their ability to explore direct monetization methods. Also, the value of this information isn't secret: Google and Facebook are public companies and publish their revenue numbers, no? It's not hard to divide by the number of active users to get an average value per user.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoI suspect that Facebook would continue to collect all the data, but just not show ads, if someone elected to pay a monthly subscription.
- manfredo 8y agoTrue, this is what was proposed last year. Essentially analogous to YouTube Red.