4 ms·

Facebook would have to pay $3.50 per month to U.S. users for contact info: study

30 points by hhs 7y ago

tusharsoni 7y ago
Misleading title - Facebook doesn't have to pay anyone. It's a study that asks people how much they value their data.
- chmod775 7y ago
  The title says "would", which mans it refers to something that isn't actually a reality yet.
sjroot 7y ago
The study: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Prince_Wallsten_How-Much-is-Privacy-Worth-Around-the-World-and-Across-Platforms.pdf https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/P...
jfengel 7y ago
I would take surveys like this[0] with a grain of salt. What people say they will pay for something is very different from what will actually get them to open their pocketbook, and the same for selling. Users regularly sell their privacy for "free" (or rather, viewed as payment for the use of a site, even if they don't entirely understand the scope of what they're giving up). It's interesting for comparing attitudes across countries, and it will be interesting to compare survey results over time. But I wouldn't do any actual budgeting based on the numbers. [0] Assuming it is a survey. TFA is kind of thin on methodology, but it sounds like a survey.
- chmod775 7y ago
  You're right, it[0] was a survey. > It's interesting for comparing attitudes across countries, and it will be interesting to compare survey results over time. But I wouldn't do any actual budgeting based on the numbers. Wholeheartedly agree. [0]: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Prince_Wallsten_How-Much-is-Privacy-Worth-Around-the-World-and-Across-Platforms.pdf https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/P...
- basch 7y ago
  I've wondered, with the late HN love of Credit Karma, and hate of Intuit, how many people with free tax returns would pay $3.99 to keep all their data from falling into an advertising database when they file. Who would pay .99c a month for the credit monitoring without also being subjected to credit card ads. It seems silly that these companies dont offer both paths, to serve both markets.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
salawat 7y ago
Uh, I might consider selling it for a non-trivial percentage of revenue gained by operating on any model of which my data is a part, with an additional binding clause that anyone they sublet access to the data to must also be bound by but I'm not sure they would be interested in my price, especially since based on the consequences of other people utilizing the same tactic, their business model would likely fall apart, and it would require I be informed any time my data was used, which I'm quite sure if they implemented an automated notification for all of their users that their information was actively used/transacted upon, Facebook would become the mother of all spam generators. Then again, that opens up an opportunity for making a personal data transaction payment information management system (PDTPIMS) so everyone can enjoy the new income stream they are entitled to merely by existing. Anyone want to fund it? /s Just kidding, it's a terrible idea; we shouldn't encourage people to sell their information, or legitimize the collection of it wholesale. There are some things that shouldn't be transacted on the basis of commerce. Pervasive monitoring and surveillance is still an attack, even if you're being "paid" for the trouble. The fact a software package to help people manage the revenue stream would likely be easier to implement doesn't justify going down that path either; as the opportunity cost of not having an accessible near perfect distributed audit trail of your life exceeds the capacity of even all economic activity since man was developed enough to barter in the presence of even the U.S. current incarnation of respect for the sanctity of data in the possession of third-parties.

30 points by hhs 7y ago

tusharsoni 7y ago

Misleading title - Facebook doesn't have to pay anyone. It's a study that asks people how much they value their data.

chmod775 7y ago
The title says "would", which mans it refers to something that isn't actually a reality yet.

sjroot 7y ago

The study: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Prince_Wallsten_How-Much-is-Privacy-Worth-Around-the-World-and-Across-Platforms.pdf https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/P...

jfengel 7y ago

I would take surveys like this[0] with a grain of salt. What people say they will pay for something is very different from what will actually get them to open their pocketbook, and the same for selling. Users regularly sell their privacy for "free" (or rather, viewed as payment for the use of a site, even if they don't entirely understand the scope of what they're giving up). It's interesting for comparing attitudes across countries, and it will be interesting to compare survey results over time. But I wouldn't do any actual budgeting based on the numbers. [0] Assuming it is a survey. TFA is kind of thin on methodology, but it sounds like a survey.

chmod775 7y ago
You're right, it[0] was a survey. > It's interesting for comparing attitudes across countries, and it will be interesting to compare survey results over time. But I wouldn't do any actual budgeting based on the numbers. Wholeheartedly agree. [0]: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Prince_Wallsten_How-Much-is-Privacy-Worth-Around-the-World-and-Across-Platforms.pdf https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/P...
basch 7y ago
I've wondered, with the late HN love of Credit Karma, and hate of Intuit, how many people with free tax returns would pay $3.99 to keep all their data from falling into an advertising database when they file. Who would pay .99c a month for the credit monitoring without also being subjected to credit card ads. It seems silly that these companies dont offer both paths, to serve both markets.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

salawat 7y ago

Uh, I might consider selling it for a non-trivial percentage of revenue gained by operating on any model of which my data is a part, with an additional binding clause that anyone they sublet access to the data to must also be bound by but I'm not sure they would be interested in my price, especially since based on the consequences of other people utilizing the same tactic, their business model would likely fall apart, and it would require I be informed any time my data was used, which I'm quite sure if they implemented an automated notification for all of their users that their information was actively used/transacted upon, Facebook would become the mother of all spam generators. Then again, that opens up an opportunity for making a personal data transaction payment information management system (PDTPIMS) so everyone can enjoy the new income stream they are entitled to merely by existing. Anyone want to fund it? /s Just kidding, it's a terrible idea; we shouldn't encourage people to sell their information, or legitimize the collection of it wholesale. There are some things that shouldn't be transacted on the basis of commerce. Pervasive monitoring and surveillance is still an attack, even if you're being "paid" for the trouble. The fact a software package to help people manage the revenue stream would likely be easier to implement doesn't justify going down that path either; as the opportunity cost of not having an accessible near perfect distributed audit trail of your life exceeds the capacity of even all economic activity since man was developed enough to barter in the presence of even the U.S. current incarnation of respect for the sanctity of data in the possession of third-parties.