4 ms·

>Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I think it's more about changing the frame. That Tech companies have been profiting off

>Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I think it's more about changing the frame. That Tech companies have been profiting off something you actually have always intrinsically owned, your personal data, and now is the time to retake that ownership.

mikedouglas 6y ago
I think it's more complicated than that. It's not clear that users do intrinsically own this data. Without the product and the graph attached to the product, this data won't exist.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Is it fair to say that it’s user-generated or user-specific data? Without the user, the data either wouldn’t exist, or wouldn’t be worth much, as in the case of shadow profiles.
- devalgo 6y ago
  It gets hairy quickly. Do you own your DNA sequence? You could say it's essentially just data. Would you be opposed to a company patenting your DNA and profiting off it?
kats 6y ago
But there's a lot of cases where there's data about someone that is not owned by them. e.g. If I go into a store and am recorded on the CCTV, the store still owns that video, even if it is about me. This could be pretty similar to the way that if someone uses Facebook and clicks on something, Facebook would own the log which recorded this. In other cases the data that users upload to websites is definitely owned by them. e.g. If I take a picture on my phone, and then later upload it to Facebook, the photo is still owned by me. However, for any site that allows users to upload photos, it will be part of the terms of service that the users give the site a license to display the photo.
- devalgo 6y ago
  I agree with that but we're talking about things that are really measurements of your mind right? What kind of articles do you read, what kind of posts do you like, products you like to buy etc. The Tech giants use rough simulacra of your mind to try and target you as efficiently as possible with ads. This seems like some kind of Black Mirror episode to me.

mikedouglas 6y ago

I think it's more complicated than that. It's not clear that users do intrinsically own this data. Without the product and the graph attached to the product, this data won't exist.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Is it fair to say that it’s user-generated or user-specific data? Without the user, the data either wouldn’t exist, or wouldn’t be worth much, as in the case of shadow profiles.
devalgo 6y ago
It gets hairy quickly. Do you own your DNA sequence? You could say it's essentially just data. Would you be opposed to a company patenting your DNA and profiting off it?

kats 6y ago

But there's a lot of cases where there's data about someone that is not owned by them. e.g. If I go into a store and am recorded on the CCTV, the store still owns that video, even if it is about me. This could be pretty similar to the way that if someone uses Facebook and clicks on something, Facebook would own the log which recorded this. In other cases the data that users upload to websites is definitely owned by them. e.g. If I take a picture on my phone, and then later upload it to Facebook, the photo is still owned by me. However, for any site that allows users to upload photos, it will be part of the terms of service that the users give the site a license to display the photo.

devalgo 6y ago
I agree with that but we're talking about things that are really measurements of your mind right? What kind of articles do you read, what kind of posts do you like, products you like to buy etc. The Tech giants use rough simulacra of your mind to try and target you as efficiently as possible with ads. This seems like some kind of Black Mirror episode to me.