4 ms·

Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of th

by dTal 6y ago

Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. Deciding how much a user's data is worth is an exercise for the reader, but I would certainly pay much more to avoid Facebook, than Facebook would pay to have me[0]. That's a red flag. [0] - as would anyone who has ever added a Facebook domain to a Pi-Hole, the total cost of which likely exceeds Facebook's per-user revenue by your numbers.

TuringNYC 6y ago
How would this work for, say, Google. Say they cut users a check and their business model no longer worked. Would they then charge for searches? Would users have the option to keep free searches in lieu of a payment?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Yes right now it's just assumed your value, your cost, their value, and their cost all balance out. But let's slap some numbers and everything and actually see if it does. If we have the option to pay up front, or sell off my data and maybe end up in the red or black. It will all be very complex in the end, but that's just exposing the inherent complexity that already exists and is just papered over.
  - yibg 6y ago
    What number would that be though? Any number is going to be made up and subjective based on the individual. I might day my data is worth $1000 a year while it’s worth $1 to you.
    - TuringNYC 6y ago
      If there is a pay option, you could just pay for searches. You set the price threshold by choosing to pay a la carte (or not.)
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Google did have a contributor program for a while which replaced ads when you paid them and they in turn paid the websites and services you visited. My guess is the advertisers weren't happy to be cut out of the loop.
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        Right, so (and not to make Google look like the good guy here) we just need this new law to tip the scales so the advertisers won't be able to convince Google not to do this.
jerf 6y ago
As I say in another comment, I'd be happy to put a punitive taxation level on this entire industry. But if we're going to talk about "paying users for their data", then from the very beginning the framing is being written in terms of what the companies can afford based on what they're making, and the whole conversation is going to be anchored in terms of what the companies make. The discussion won't be about internalizing externalities, it'll be about the users profit-sharing with the companies. If you want to internal externalities, go for the tax. Probably an easier sell to the politicians.
darawk 6y ago
> Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. How are you going to value what has been extracted from them, though? Facebook is in a better position to value it than anyone: they're selling it. What people are willing to pay them for it is literally its value. I don't really see how you can decide that the value of the data is greater than what Facebook is extracting from it. If it were, they'd be charging that much.
- thechao 6y ago
  My data is mine; as the seller, I can price the data about me at any value I want, that doesn’t mean that someone will buy it. If Facebook comes along and takes my data for less than I’m selling it, that’s called theft, and it’s a crime.
  - darawk 6y ago
    Of course you can price it however you want. And you do. You are in control of whether and when to give away your data. If you use Facebook, you are trading your data for their services.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      Well, except that Facebook will collect data on you even if you're not using their services.
- darkerside 6y ago
  When you're getting something for free, you sell it for cheap

by dTal 6y ago

TuringNYC 6y ago

How would this work for, say, Google. Say they cut users a check and their business model no longer worked. Would they then charge for searches? Would users have the option to keep free searches in lieu of a payment?

Ericson2314 6y ago
Yes right now it's just assumed your value, your cost, their value, and their cost all balance out. But let's slap some numbers and everything and actually see if it does. If we have the option to pay up front, or sell off my data and maybe end up in the red or black. It will all be very complex in the end, but that's just exposing the inherent complexity that already exists and is just papered over.
- yibg 6y ago
  What number would that be though? Any number is going to be made up and subjective based on the individual. I might day my data is worth $1000 a year while it’s worth $1 to you.
  - TuringNYC 6y ago
    If there is a pay option, you could just pay for searches. You set the price threshold by choosing to pay a la carte (or not.)
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Google did have a contributor program for a while which replaced ads when you paid them and they in turn paid the websites and services you visited. My guess is the advertisers weren't happy to be cut out of the loop.
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        Right, so (and not to make Google look like the good guy here) we just need this new law to tip the scales so the advertisers won't be able to convince Google not to do this.

jerf 6y ago

As I say in another comment, I'd be happy to put a punitive taxation level on this entire industry. But if we're going to talk about "paying users for their data", then from the very beginning the framing is being written in terms of what the companies can afford based on what they're making, and the whole conversation is going to be anchored in terms of what the companies make. The discussion won't be about internalizing externalities, it'll be about the users profit-sharing with the companies. If you want to internal externalities, go for the tax. Probably an easier sell to the politicians.

darawk 6y ago

> Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. How are you going to value what has been extracted from them, though? Facebook is in a better position to value it than anyone: they're selling it. What people are willing to pay them for it is literally its value. I don't really see how you can decide that the value of the data is greater than what Facebook is extracting from it. If it were, they'd be charging that much.

thechao 6y ago
My data is mine; as the seller, I can price the data about me at any value I want, that doesn’t mean that someone will buy it. If Facebook comes along and takes my data for less than I’m selling it, that’s called theft, and it’s a crime.
- darawk 6y ago
  Of course you can price it however you want. And you do. You are in control of whether and when to give away your data. If you use Facebook, you are trading your data for their services.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    Well, except that Facebook will collect data on you even if you're not using their services.
darkerside 6y ago
When you're getting something for free, you sell it for cheap