5 ms·

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. Th

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

maerF0x0 6y ago
Many people think that "free" is a bad deal given the profits these companies make. Many people would prefer the more transparent pricing of "$5 per month" over the abstract "Whatever we can earn from your data, combined with everyone else's, by any means"
- ksdale 6y ago
  I agree that transparent pricing would be an excellent option to have, but based on some quick googling, FB's net profit is only something like 25 cents per monthly active user per month (assuming I did the math correctly...). If FB gave people a rebate in the amount of their net profit, the whole transaction would round out to FB operating and people getting it for free, so it's not obviously that bad of a deal for users, at least not with profit as the metric.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    But also if your point is true, I'd happily pay $3 a year for FB to retain all rights to the data they collect about me. My data is only worth $3 a year to others, but my privacy and peace of mind is worth more than that to me.
    - ksdale 6y ago
      Yeah for sure, I think these paltry per user numbers make a great case for having a user pay option.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      I agree with you as a user. From the company's perspective though, I'm guessing there's a decent correlation between "people who will pay $, instead of free" and "people who have enough disposable income to impulse-buy high-cost items from your ads". As anecdata, if you offered me instagram without ads for $10 / year I wouldn't even blink before accepting it. Yet I've also bought a half dozen things from their ads for > $50 over the last few years, which is likely more valuable to them. Or more specifically, makes their ad platform more valuable to their ad-buying business customers.
    - qeternity 6y ago
      Facebook has revenues of $70b where are you getting $3/yr??
      - maerF0x0 6y ago
        Poster above me, reusing their number to keep the thought cogent. The point is if the revenue per user is low enough some (many?) would want to opt out of data/privacy infringement and pay for the service directly, maybe even at a greater cost than revenue share. Also keep in mind that some percent of that revenue is from other things (ads for example). They could still make ad revenue on paid users, just marginally less.
        qeternity 6y ago
        The ads are only valuable because Facebook have lots of data to target you accurately. This is mostly what people mean when they selling your data...it's less that Facebook is handing it over, it's that Facebook are providing a platform for advertisers to target you based on this data.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- qeternity 6y ago
  Many people may want this, but it’s likely a microscopic number in the grand scheme. Look at the length people go through to share Netflix, etc. Hell, I know how deep this rabbit hole goes and I hardly care.
jackcosgrove 6y ago
So we're bartering with Google. There are a couple problems with this that I can see. First, given that the transaction is not exchanged using dollars, we don't know if we are getting ripped off. One of the useful signals that money sends is uniform price discovery. Maybe we as consumers are leaving a lot of money on the table. Second, it's a gray economy that escapes taxation. If Google can conduct a significant fraction of its business in an untaxed gray zone, while General Motors must account and pay all suppliers for the taxes they must pay to the government, then that's a market distortion in favor of Google. This is why bartering at large scales is illegal, unless of course you're an internet company.
- qeternity 6y ago
  What do you mean “ripped off”? Do you mean you don’t know what Google sells it for? It doesn’t matter, that’s not how trade works. If you’d rather trade your data for free email, search, messaging, etc then you’re not being ripped off. You don’t walk around all day evaluating the rest of your purchases based on COGS, you do it based on the value you receive in return.
rojobuffalo 6y ago
BS. paying for internet products with personal data is nothing like a financial transaction at a store. money is a uniform unit; personal data is not that. Those of us who are well-aware of data harvesting still forget about it all the time; it isn't at the forefront of our attention when we're shopping on Amazon or watching videos on Youtube. at a store you pull money out of your wallet, all the elements of the exchange are at the top of your attention, and when it's over it's over. data collection is constant, has far-reaching effects on the future, and we have no intuition about the manipulation we're opening ourselves up to.
- qeternity 6y ago
  What did I say that was BS? Your entire comment is completely orthogonal to mine.
  - rojobuffalo 6y ago
    i don't mean "BS" with venom aimed at you. but you equated a cash transaction at a store to data commodification by internet companies. data commodification is very materially different from exchanging a currency for a physical good; and i think it's wrong to lose that distinction with a metaphor that's too simplistic.
    - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
      > i think it's wrong to lose that distinction with a metaphor that's too simplistic I see your point but we are commenting on an article that is talking about "data dividends" :)
waholleyiv 6y ago
If I walk into a store and make no purchase creates no value for the store. Visiting a website with a Facebook tracker (21.9% of the web) and making no purchase creates value for Facebook.
- kmlx 6y ago
  you would be surprised, but that also creates value for the store. i worked with a company that tracks you and your facial expressions as you move thru the store. they analysed that data to show new products and move things around.

maerF0x0 6y ago

Many people think that "free" is a bad deal given the profits these companies make. Many people would prefer the more transparent pricing of "$5 per month" over the abstract "Whatever we can earn from your data, combined with everyone else's, by any means"

ksdale 6y ago
I agree that transparent pricing would be an excellent option to have, but based on some quick googling, FB's net profit is only something like 25 cents per monthly active user per month (assuming I did the math correctly...). If FB gave people a rebate in the amount of their net profit, the whole transaction would round out to FB operating and people getting it for free, so it's not obviously that bad of a deal for users, at least not with profit as the metric.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  But also if your point is true, I'd happily pay $3 a year for FB to retain all rights to the data they collect about me. My data is only worth $3 a year to others, but my privacy and peace of mind is worth more than that to me.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    Yeah for sure, I think these paltry per user numbers make a great case for having a user pay option.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    I agree with you as a user. From the company's perspective though, I'm guessing there's a decent correlation between "people who will pay $, instead of free" and "people who have enough disposable income to impulse-buy high-cost items from your ads". As anecdata, if you offered me instagram without ads for $10 / year I wouldn't even blink before accepting it. Yet I've also bought a half dozen things from their ads for > $50 over the last few years, which is likely more valuable to them. Or more specifically, makes their ad platform more valuable to their ad-buying business customers.
  - qeternity 6y ago
    Facebook has revenues of $70b where are you getting $3/yr??
    - maerF0x0 6y ago
      Poster above me, reusing their number to keep the thought cogent. The point is if the revenue per user is low enough some (many?) would want to opt out of data/privacy infringement and pay for the service directly, maybe even at a greater cost than revenue share. Also keep in mind that some percent of that revenue is from other things (ads for example). They could still make ad revenue on paid users, just marginally less.
      - qeternity 6y ago
        The ads are only valuable because Facebook have lots of data to target you accurately. This is mostly what people mean when they selling your data...it's less that Facebook is handing it over, it's that Facebook are providing a platform for advertisers to target you based on this data.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
qeternity 6y ago
Many people may want this, but it’s likely a microscopic number in the grand scheme. Look at the length people go through to share Netflix, etc. Hell, I know how deep this rabbit hole goes and I hardly care.

jackcosgrove 6y ago

So we're bartering with Google. There are a couple problems with this that I can see. First, given that the transaction is not exchanged using dollars, we don't know if we are getting ripped off. One of the useful signals that money sends is uniform price discovery. Maybe we as consumers are leaving a lot of money on the table. Second, it's a gray economy that escapes taxation. If Google can conduct a significant fraction of its business in an untaxed gray zone, while General Motors must account and pay all suppliers for the taxes they must pay to the government, then that's a market distortion in favor of Google. This is why bartering at large scales is illegal, unless of course you're an internet company.

qeternity 6y ago
What do you mean “ripped off”? Do you mean you don’t know what Google sells it for? It doesn’t matter, that’s not how trade works. If you’d rather trade your data for free email, search, messaging, etc then you’re not being ripped off. You don’t walk around all day evaluating the rest of your purchases based on COGS, you do it based on the value you receive in return.

rojobuffalo 6y ago

BS. paying for internet products with personal data is nothing like a financial transaction at a store. money is a uniform unit; personal data is not that. Those of us who are well-aware of data harvesting still forget about it all the time; it isn't at the forefront of our attention when we're shopping on Amazon or watching videos on Youtube. at a store you pull money out of your wallet, all the elements of the exchange are at the top of your attention, and when it's over it's over. data collection is constant, has far-reaching effects on the future, and we have no intuition about the manipulation we're opening ourselves up to.

qeternity 6y ago
What did I say that was BS? Your entire comment is completely orthogonal to mine.
- rojobuffalo 6y ago
  i don't mean "BS" with venom aimed at you. but you equated a cash transaction at a store to data commodification by internet companies. data commodification is very materially different from exchanging a currency for a physical good; and i think it's wrong to lose that distinction with a metaphor that's too simplistic.
  - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
    > i think it's wrong to lose that distinction with a metaphor that's too simplistic I see your point but we are commenting on an article that is talking about "data dividends" :)

waholleyiv 6y ago

If I walk into a store and make no purchase creates no value for the store. Visiting a website with a Facebook tracker (21.9% of the web) and making no purchase creates value for Facebook.

kmlx 6y ago
you would be surprised, but that also creates value for the store. i worked with a company that tracks you and your facial expressions as you move thru the store. they analysed that data to show new products and move things around.