5 ms·

I think it is a step forward to pay users for data. Of course, amazon still collects everything it can anyway, for free. But in principle, this is good. But two

by zwaps 7y ago

I think it is a step forward to pay users for data. Of course, amazon still collects everything it can anyway, for free. But in principle, this is good. But two things. 1. What is the correct price? Amazon is doing this to better discriminate customers on offerings, price and quality. It's essentially the sophisticated version of what econ 101 calls "siphoning off the consumer surplus by price discrimination". At this stage, it is highly doubtful that the fixed 10 bucks actually represents the true value that the consumer's data. 2. Externalities. Especially considering that amazon can classify you by other means, people that are like you getting these 10 bucks means that amazon increases its discriminatory power toward you - whether you have gotten the money or not. This is a negative externality - one that the market simply can not solve because we fundamentally lack information and this behavior essentially induces a prisoners dilemma among consumers. Amazon is going to know everything anyway, so I might as well take the 10 bucks.

peeters 7y ago
I don't find it a step forward at all. It's a move toward pricing out the privacy-conscious. Right now, auto insurers in Canada will give you a premium reduction if you let them spy on you as you drive. But what happens when that becomes the norm? People end up paying a premium to not be spied on. Eventually privacy becomes unaffordable.
- bbmario 7y ago
  If you value privacy, pay for it.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Privacy was the default. Not a privilege. There is currently a shift towards it being one. That's the problem people are having with these issues.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Privacy should be the default. It should continue to be a right.
    - geofft 7y ago
      In a capitalist society, something being a right has no bearing on whether you need to pay for it. You have the right to life, but if you get sick, you need to figure out how to pay for it, and if you can't, you might not be able to exercise that right. You have the right to liberty, but if someone infringes your liberty, nobody is going to give you a lawyer for free and you have slim chances of succeeding without representation. (If you are accused, you have the right to an overworked public defender who has little incentive to fight for you, or you can pay for your own lawyer; if you're the accuser there aren't public prosecutors.) You have the right to property, but only what you can afford. You have the right to pursue happiness, but if your happiness requires a college education, let's hope you were born to parents who could afford it. You have the right to marry whoever you like, regardless of gender - as long as you write a check for $30 or so to the appropriate local government office.
      - blub 7y ago
        In a capitalist society that doesn't respect human rights, like the USA this may happen. It also happens in poor societies that can't afford to enforce these rights. But there are countries out there which strive to uphold these rights, no matter if one affords to pay for various services or not.
        geofft 7y ago
        I wouldn't call those capitalist, I think. Perhaps market socialist.
      - Brain_Thief 7y ago
        This is correct and one of the best high-level descriptions I've read recently of why American-style capitalism's ultimate conclusion is pernicious social rot.
      - 7y ago
  - blub 7y ago
    Privacy is a human right specified in the ICCPR article 17: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_C... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Ci...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- geofft 7y ago
  Privacy becomes worth what the market will bear. If that's unaffordable, that's just because it's valuable. There's all sorts of other premiums on the exercise of your rights in a private context. It's very hard to get a job in information sectors that lets you retain copyright of your creative work, or in general a job that lets you exercise your freedom of speech without potentially risking your job. If you have physical handicaps, it's more expensive to get a house and a car that are accessible (because there are fewer opinions on the market), you can't necessarily use public transit, and your choice of jobs is also quite limited. Medication and treatment for chronic conditions, whether physical or mental, often exceeds what your insurance will pay. Having a child is quite expensive. If someone has wronged you, depending on the issue, getting a lawyer may be very pricy. If we think that the market should not set a price for certain desirable basic things, it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general, not on the market participants for taking rational advantage of it in particular cases. Personally, I'm of the opinion that everyone should get privacy for free, but I'm also of the opinion that everyone should get health care for free.
  - blub 7y ago
    In societies which enforce human rights, privacy is upheld through laws, not left to the market. Leaving it to the market leads to horror scenarios like the one we have to live through right now: the USA's banana republic privacy laws are hurting all of us.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > If we think that the market should not set a price for certain desirable basic things, it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general, not on the market participants for taking rational advantage of it in particular cases. It can be both.
  - peeters 7y ago
    > it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general I agree, but there's no underlying constant that humans act rationally or in their own best interest. I don't think the market can protect rights, period. And putting a price on them marginalizes the poor even more.
- behringer 7y ago
  It won't become unaffordable, it'll just be like cable tv did to commercials. Once they started airing them, they didn't go away, and now you can't get cable without commercials.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The other side of this is people paying a premium to subsidize other unsafe drivers.
  - jkaplowitz 7y ago
    Well, more precisely, people who care about privacy more than price paying a premium to subsidize anyone with the opposite priority. That only loosely correlates with driver safety, especially since a bad claims history has an independent impact on price.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Assuming it only loosely correlates, then the premium difference between a driver opting into tracking will be small compared to those opting out.
- rando444 7y ago
  I would say this is only tangentially related to the real issue, which is how collected data is used. There is a huge difference between the scenario you describe, where a company is using your data in an attempt to help you improve your life (save money). vs. A company who takes your data and uses it for profit-generating endeavors that you did not willfully consent to.
hedora 7y ago
I think this is just a perceived prisoners dilemma where you don’t actually win if you cooperate. What people probably think: If I install the plugin, Amazon can always beat the target and walmart price for me. The reality: this lets Amazon increase their prices on cheaper goods to within a tiny fraction of what walmart and target offer, and also build a psychological model of the consumer to charge a bit more depending on their state of mind (Tired? Rushed? Pissed off at Trump today, and therefore red-state-headquartered Walmart?), etc, etc. Most people that install this will only see the first order effect though — $10 and more convenient comparison shopping. Of course there is another category: People that understand the game, and think they can beat the house. They should install it too (and then go try to make money playing slots at a casino).
- zwaps 7y ago
  Prisoners dilemma also works with appropriately sized losses, which is what this is.

by zwaps 7y ago

peeters 7y ago

I don't find it a step forward at all. It's a move toward pricing out the privacy-conscious. Right now, auto insurers in Canada will give you a premium reduction if you let them spy on you as you drive. But what happens when that becomes the norm? People end up paying a premium to not be spied on. Eventually privacy becomes unaffordable.

bbmario 7y ago
If you value privacy, pay for it.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Privacy was the default. Not a privilege. There is currently a shift towards it being one. That's the problem people are having with these issues.
- godelski 7y ago
  Privacy should be the default. It should continue to be a right.
  - geofft 7y ago
    In a capitalist society, something being a right has no bearing on whether you need to pay for it. You have the right to life, but if you get sick, you need to figure out how to pay for it, and if you can't, you might not be able to exercise that right. You have the right to liberty, but if someone infringes your liberty, nobody is going to give you a lawyer for free and you have slim chances of succeeding without representation. (If you are accused, you have the right to an overworked public defender who has little incentive to fight for you, or you can pay for your own lawyer; if you're the accuser there aren't public prosecutors.) You have the right to property, but only what you can afford. You have the right to pursue happiness, but if your happiness requires a college education, let's hope you were born to parents who could afford it. You have the right to marry whoever you like, regardless of gender - as long as you write a check for $30 or so to the appropriate local government office.
    - blub 7y ago
      In a capitalist society that doesn't respect human rights, like the USA this may happen. It also happens in poor societies that can't afford to enforce these rights. But there are countries out there which strive to uphold these rights, no matter if one affords to pay for various services or not.
      - geofft 7y ago
        I wouldn't call those capitalist, I think. Perhaps market socialist.
    - Brain_Thief 7y ago
      This is correct and one of the best high-level descriptions I've read recently of why American-style capitalism's ultimate conclusion is pernicious social rot.
    - 7y ago
- blub 7y ago
  Privacy is a human right specified in the ICCPR article 17: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_C... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Ci...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
geofft 7y ago
Privacy becomes worth what the market will bear. If that's unaffordable, that's just because it's valuable. There's all sorts of other premiums on the exercise of your rights in a private context. It's very hard to get a job in information sectors that lets you retain copyright of your creative work, or in general a job that lets you exercise your freedom of speech without potentially risking your job. If you have physical handicaps, it's more expensive to get a house and a car that are accessible (because there are fewer opinions on the market), you can't necessarily use public transit, and your choice of jobs is also quite limited. Medication and treatment for chronic conditions, whether physical or mental, often exceeds what your insurance will pay. Having a child is quite expensive. If someone has wronged you, depending on the issue, getting a lawyer may be very pricy. If we think that the market should not set a price for certain desirable basic things, it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general, not on the market participants for taking rational advantage of it in particular cases. Personally, I'm of the opinion that everyone should get privacy for free, but I'm also of the opinion that everyone should get health care for free.
- blub 7y ago
  In societies which enforce human rights, privacy is upheld through laws, not left to the market. Leaving it to the market leads to horror scenarios like the one we have to live through right now: the USA's banana republic privacy laws are hurting all of us.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > If we think that the market should not set a price for certain desirable basic things, it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general, not on the market participants for taking rational advantage of it in particular cases. It can be both.
- peeters 7y ago
  > it seems like the fault is on society for allowing and encouraging the market to do so in general I agree, but there's no underlying constant that humans act rationally or in their own best interest. I don't think the market can protect rights, period. And putting a price on them marginalizes the poor even more.
behringer 7y ago
It won't become unaffordable, it'll just be like cable tv did to commercials. Once they started airing them, they didn't go away, and now you can't get cable without commercials.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
The other side of this is people paying a premium to subsidize other unsafe drivers.
- jkaplowitz 7y ago
  Well, more precisely, people who care about privacy more than price paying a premium to subsidize anyone with the opposite priority. That only loosely correlates with driver safety, especially since a bad claims history has an independent impact on price.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Assuming it only loosely correlates, then the premium difference between a driver opting into tracking will be small compared to those opting out.
rando444 7y ago
I would say this is only tangentially related to the real issue, which is how collected data is used. There is a huge difference between the scenario you describe, where a company is using your data in an attempt to help you improve your life (save money). vs. A company who takes your data and uses it for profit-generating endeavors that you did not willfully consent to.

hedora 7y ago

I think this is just a perceived prisoners dilemma where you don’t actually win if you cooperate. What people probably think: If I install the plugin, Amazon can always beat the target and walmart price for me. The reality: this lets Amazon increase their prices on cheaper goods to within a tiny fraction of what walmart and target offer, and also build a psychological model of the consumer to charge a bit more depending on their state of mind (Tired? Rushed? Pissed off at Trump today, and therefore red-state-headquartered Walmart?), etc, etc. Most people that install this will only see the first order effect though — $10 and more convenient comparison shopping. Of course there is another category: People that understand the game, and think they can beat the house. They should install it too (and then go try to make money playing slots at a casino).

zwaps 7y ago
Prisoners dilemma also works with appropriately sized losses, which is what this is.