5 ms·

> Every online service costs money to provide. [...] Since most people are unwilling to pay for online services, the way to cover these costs is by advertising

> Every online service costs money to provide. [...] Since most people are unwilling to pay for online services, the way to cover these costs is by advertising to the users. Why does it follow that we should be okay with privacy intrusions? Companies don't have a right to their business model. If we as a society decide to limit how companies can collect and use our data, and it forces some to start charging their users or go out of business, that's okay! Just because that's a sustainable way to run a business right now doesn't mean it should be.

enitihas 7y ago
How would we as a society decide that? The majority of society is more concerned with putting food on the table and paying their rent, and would have zero interest in deciding to get rid of "paid by data" products. Unless we as a society can provide everyone the basic amenities first(food,home,maybe a job), I am not sure people are willing to let go these seemingly free services. Getting control of your data is very important, but the vast majority of humans have many far more pressing concerns.
- kekebo 7y ago
  The assumption that most of western society is busy with securing basic survival seems like a constructed knockout argument. The fact that you are here to discuss the matter indicates that doesn't apply to yourself for instance. As for how society would decide it, I see consumer pressure as decisive, the more ethical handling of data becomes a selling point, the more financial incentives companies have to implement and market it. It's visible right now in how Apple positions itself against Google as the more privacy minded company with enough public appraisal to challenge, if not invalidate, your assumption.
- deogeo 7y ago
  "Do nothing until we've solved poverty." And there are many assumptions in your post that are not necessarily true: 1. Services could still be free to most users, with paid versions that provide more functionality. 2. Privacy invasion and advertising has a cost, that those very people worrying about food have to pay. They don't have to pay 2$/month for e-mail, but then will spend N$ for the expertly marketed toy/cereal their child is throwing a tantrum over, and their own purchasing choices will also be affected adversely - advertising works.
cortesoft 7y ago
This is also based on the assumption that you can't have ads and privacy. We had ads for a long time without privacy invasion. Just have the ads match the content being viewed (instead of the person viewing the content)
- MarkMc 7y ago
  Can't you already do that using your browser's incognito mode?
  - inetknght 7y ago
    Using browsers incognito mode does not eliminate privacy violations.
josho 7y ago
The reason why consumers are unwilling to pay for service is because VCs have funded companies ability to give away tremendous value to achieve fast growth. Because of this consumers now have an expectation for free. Previously when software was sold at retail, consumers had no qualms paying for software. So maybe you are right and the root problem are the business models and specifically the funding behind those models.
- vageli 7y ago
  > The reason why consumers are unwilling to pay for service is because VCs have funded companies ability to give away tremendous value to achieve fast growth. Because of this consumers now have an expectation for free. > Previously when software was sold at retail, consumers had no qualms paying for software. When was this? I recall the warez, cracking and keygen scenes being huge years ago (before the rise of SaaS).
  - meesles 7y ago
    That misses the point. Theft and hacking are still prevalent, that hasn't changed. What's changed is that people expect software like Facebook, Twitter, or Gmail for free. Decades ago the average consumer walked into a Fry's or Microcenter and bought their copy of Windows.
  - anonymousab 7y ago
    In this case 'people' does not mean 'every single person' but rather 'a significantly large enough amount of people as to represent a valid business model in many cases'.
- dageshi 7y ago
  No.. the early internet was pretty much all free to read, the only thing that's ever really been able to charge is porn. For everything else if it looks like a website, acts like a website then people expect it to be free. Try to charge and people will move on.
esoterica 7y ago
Why are you so sure that that's what "society" wants? Most people do not want to pay Google $20/month to look stuff up on the Internet. If that's what you think "society" wants then you live in a hermetic bubble.
- black_bird 7y ago
  I'm with you. Again and again we see how certain conclusions and opinions expressed on this site presuppose a global knowledge about the preferences of other people. Regulators, planners and collectivists assume that what is bad for them must be bad for others, that what is good for them must be good for everyone and therefore "have" the right to force people to act as they think they should act according to their arbitrary criteria. If "society" requires services with a greater emphasis on privacy, they will be more in demand and will find their corresponding offer in the marketplace. >Why we can't have privacy on the internet... Bullshit. We can have whatever we want, but if I demand something I must offer something in return, be it money, private data or unicorns. There is no such thing as a free coffee.
  - FridgeSeal 7y ago
    > they will be more in demand and will find their corresponding offer in the marketplace. Ah yes, the classic refrain of “the free market will just fix everything” despite that, you know, not being the case time-and-time-again. A huge number of products and services these days are “supply driven demand”, so consumers voting with your wallet is extremely limited in scope and power: you’re not being given a representative set of available options, you’re being given the choice between a few-often superficially different- options that companies are happy to provide. Coupled with the fact that many companies and the advertising industry as a whole has pushed a narrative of “just give up all your data, it’s fiiiinnne” means consumers aren’t informed or aware of all the options they could demand. Add in the fact that a huge number of people simply don’t have the luxury of shopping around for their preferred product at every opportunity.
    - black_bird 7y ago
el_programmador 7y ago
What if the plebeians don't mind privacy intrusions? What if they are happy to give away their privacy on a platter if they are getting free email, digital maps, traffic stats, cloud drive and a whole lot of other goodies from Google? Never underestimate the power of freebies!
- inetknght 7y ago
  Plebeians? Is that what you think of people who are too busy, working to pay for basic food and living conditions, to take any time whatsoever to understand how they still pay even for "freebies"?
  - el_programmador 7y ago
    Plebeians here means common people or the commoners, no need to get triggered!
    - inetknght 7y ago
      Do you not consider yourself "common people"? I consider myself common.
      - el_programmador 7y ago
        Yep exactly. I consider myself common that's why I don't get offended by the word "plebeian". In my books, plebeian is just a synonym for "commoners", there is no other meaning to it.
black_bird 7y ago
There is no "we" in this. I would express it: >Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay? As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there's nothing to say. If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently. >If we as a society decide to limit how companies can collect and use our data... Why? I don't have the right to decide for you. If you decide to get married, do I have the right to tell you how to proceed in your contractual relationship with your partner? As long as it is a voluntary contract and the individual rights of others are respected..., does the rest of society or the government have the right to decide or impose rules for you or your partner on how your association proceeds? "Take it, leave it or shut up." If the concept of "privacy" is as important to society as it is to you, it will lead to an increase in demand and supply linked to services that incorporate greater privacy into their products. You don't need to do anything about it, but whatever you try to do in an arbitrary, subjective and coercive way, it will be objectively immoral and violent towards the rest of the people. >Companies don't have a right to their business model. They have that right because we all have it, just as you have the right to plan your life but you don't have the right to plan someone else's life.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently. That's completely ignoring network effects: I want to delete WhatsApp from my phone. But if I do so, it means I won't be taking part in everyday family life anymore.
  - black_bird 7y ago
    Then you agree with me. Your preference is greater for "being in contact with someone" than your privacy or other factors. Case closed. Or are you saying that someone should force your family members to use another product that suits your personal preferences?
agumonkey 7y ago
being ok was not the point, society moves before laws are made, and to pay their bills they found selling user logs were a way to do so they probably discussed making people pay a small fee but I'm sure many web things died when they asked for money
johnchristopher 7y ago
Still relevant today and for historical perspective: https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-free/ https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-free/ (Free is the new price)

enitihas 7y ago

How would we as a society decide that? The majority of society is more concerned with putting food on the table and paying their rent, and would have zero interest in deciding to get rid of "paid by data" products. Unless we as a society can provide everyone the basic amenities first(food,home,maybe a job), I am not sure people are willing to let go these seemingly free services. Getting control of your data is very important, but the vast majority of humans have many far more pressing concerns.

kekebo 7y ago
The assumption that most of western society is busy with securing basic survival seems like a constructed knockout argument. The fact that you are here to discuss the matter indicates that doesn't apply to yourself for instance. As for how society would decide it, I see consumer pressure as decisive, the more ethical handling of data becomes a selling point, the more financial incentives companies have to implement and market it. It's visible right now in how Apple positions itself against Google as the more privacy minded company with enough public appraisal to challenge, if not invalidate, your assumption.
deogeo 7y ago
"Do nothing until we've solved poverty." And there are many assumptions in your post that are not necessarily true: 1. Services could still be free to most users, with paid versions that provide more functionality. 2. Privacy invasion and advertising has a cost, that those very people worrying about food have to pay. They don't have to pay 2$/month for e-mail, but then will spend N$ for the expertly marketed toy/cereal their child is throwing a tantrum over, and their own purchasing choices will also be affected adversely - advertising works.

cortesoft 7y ago

This is also based on the assumption that you can't have ads and privacy. We had ads for a long time without privacy invasion. Just have the ads match the content being viewed (instead of the person viewing the content)

MarkMc 7y ago
Can't you already do that using your browser's incognito mode?
- inetknght 7y ago
  Using browsers incognito mode does not eliminate privacy violations.

josho 7y ago

The reason why consumers are unwilling to pay for service is because VCs have funded companies ability to give away tremendous value to achieve fast growth. Because of this consumers now have an expectation for free. Previously when software was sold at retail, consumers had no qualms paying for software. So maybe you are right and the root problem are the business models and specifically the funding behind those models.

vageli 7y ago
> The reason why consumers are unwilling to pay for service is because VCs have funded companies ability to give away tremendous value to achieve fast growth. Because of this consumers now have an expectation for free. > Previously when software was sold at retail, consumers had no qualms paying for software. When was this? I recall the warez, cracking and keygen scenes being huge years ago (before the rise of SaaS).
- meesles 7y ago
  That misses the point. Theft and hacking are still prevalent, that hasn't changed. What's changed is that people expect software like Facebook, Twitter, or Gmail for free. Decades ago the average consumer walked into a Fry's or Microcenter and bought their copy of Windows.
- anonymousab 7y ago
  In this case 'people' does not mean 'every single person' but rather 'a significantly large enough amount of people as to represent a valid business model in many cases'.
dageshi 7y ago
No.. the early internet was pretty much all free to read, the only thing that's ever really been able to charge is porn. For everything else if it looks like a website, acts like a website then people expect it to be free. Try to charge and people will move on.

esoterica 7y ago

Why are you so sure that that's what "society" wants? Most people do not want to pay Google $20/month to look stuff up on the Internet. If that's what you think "society" wants then you live in a hermetic bubble.

black_bird 7y ago
I'm with you. Again and again we see how certain conclusions and opinions expressed on this site presuppose a global knowledge about the preferences of other people. Regulators, planners and collectivists assume that what is bad for them must be bad for others, that what is good for them must be good for everyone and therefore "have" the right to force people to act as they think they should act according to their arbitrary criteria. If "society" requires services with a greater emphasis on privacy, they will be more in demand and will find their corresponding offer in the marketplace. >Why we can't have privacy on the internet... Bullshit. We can have whatever we want, but if I demand something I must offer something in return, be it money, private data or unicorns. There is no such thing as a free coffee.
- FridgeSeal 7y ago
  > they will be more in demand and will find their corresponding offer in the marketplace. Ah yes, the classic refrain of “the free market will just fix everything” despite that, you know, not being the case time-and-time-again. A huge number of products and services these days are “supply driven demand”, so consumers voting with your wallet is extremely limited in scope and power: you’re not being given a representative set of available options, you’re being given the choice between a few-often superficially different- options that companies are happy to provide. Coupled with the fact that many companies and the advertising industry as a whole has pushed a narrative of “just give up all your data, it’s fiiiinnne” means consumers aren’t informed or aware of all the options they could demand. Add in the fact that a huge number of people simply don’t have the luxury of shopping around for their preferred product at every opportunity.
  - black_bird 7y ago

el_programmador 7y ago

What if the plebeians don't mind privacy intrusions? What if they are happy to give away their privacy on a platter if they are getting free email, digital maps, traffic stats, cloud drive and a whole lot of other goodies from Google? Never underestimate the power of freebies!

inetknght 7y ago
Plebeians? Is that what you think of people who are too busy, working to pay for basic food and living conditions, to take any time whatsoever to understand how they still pay even for "freebies"?
- el_programmador 7y ago
  Plebeians here means common people or the commoners, no need to get triggered!
  - inetknght 7y ago
    Do you not consider yourself "common people"? I consider myself common.
    - el_programmador 7y ago
      Yep exactly. I consider myself common that's why I don't get offended by the word "plebeian". In my books, plebeian is just a synonym for "commoners", there is no other meaning to it.

black_bird 7y ago

There is no "we" in this. I would express it: >Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay? As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there's nothing to say. If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently. >If we as a society decide to limit how companies can collect and use our data... Why? I don't have the right to decide for you. If you decide to get married, do I have the right to tell you how to proceed in your contractual relationship with your partner? As long as it is a voluntary contract and the individual rights of others are respected..., does the rest of society or the government have the right to decide or impose rules for you or your partner on how your association proceeds? "Take it, leave it or shut up." If the concept of "privacy" is as important to society as it is to you, it will lead to an increase in demand and supply linked to services that incorporate greater privacy into their products. You don't need to do anything about it, but whatever you try to do in an arbitrary, subjective and coercive way, it will be objectively immoral and violent towards the rest of the people. >Companies don't have a right to their business model. They have that right because we all have it, just as you have the right to plan your life but you don't have the right to plan someone else's life.

majewsky 7y ago
> If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently. That's completely ignoring network effects: I want to delete WhatsApp from my phone. But if I do so, it means I won't be taking part in everyday family life anymore.
- black_bird 7y ago
  Then you agree with me. Your preference is greater for "being in contact with someone" than your privacy or other factors. Case closed. Or are you saying that someone should force your family members to use another product that suits your personal preferences?

agumonkey 7y ago

being ok was not the point, society moves before laws are made, and to pay their bills they found selling user logs were a way to do so they probably discussed making people pay a small fee but I'm sure many web things died when they asked for money

johnchristopher 7y ago

Still relevant today and for historical perspective: https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-free/ https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-free/ (Free is the new price)