2 ms·

> How can you put a standard price on privacy? Interesting question, with a lot of scope for answers. Different people have different feelings about privacy.

> How can you put a standard price on privacy? Interesting question, with a lot of scope for answers. Different people have different feelings about privacy. The Nobel prize for economics this year was awarded for auction theory. Google's ad revenue model implements a form of Vickrey-Grove auction. https://www.adviso.ca/blog/tech/google-adwords-what-kind-of-auction-is-it/ https://www.adviso.ca/blog/tech/google-adwords-what-kind-of-... One possibility for "pricing privacy" is for google to compensate users for their metadata using a price that is derived from the commercial gain yielded from harvesting the metadata. Google already has a vast IT infrastructure for managing every individual's metadata history. The price dividend could simply be an output of that IT infrastructure, paid to users in some form.

bogwog 6y ago
> is for google to compensate users for their metadata using a price that is derived from the commercial gain yielded from harvesting the metadata But then the compensation users receive depends on whether Google gets a good deal or not, and it still leaves Google with immense power and control. And what about the users who value their privacy higher? They might decide not to use Google, but that's only useful if there is an alternative that can actually compete with Google. Maybe the compensation thing will increase Google's costs and make it easier for others to compete, but that seems unfair; why should Google have to compensate users, but not others? Any ruling would have to apply to everyone, because that's how common law systems work. So if everyone has to compensate users, then no one will gain an advantage over Google. So the end result is just that Google makes less money while still maintaining their monopoly, and innovation doesn't happen.

2 ms·

> How can you put a standard price on privacy? Interesting question, with a lot of scope for answers. Different people have different feelings about privacy.

by wombatmobile 6y ago

bogwog 6y ago
> is for google to compensate users for their metadata using a price that is derived from the commercial gain yielded from harvesting the metadata But then the compensation users receive depends on whether Google gets a good deal or not, and it still leaves Google with immense power and control. And what about the users who value their privacy higher? They might decide not to use Google, but that's only useful if there is an alternative that can actually compete with Google. Maybe the compensation thing will increase Google's costs and make it easier for others to compete, but that seems unfair; why should Google have to compensate users, but not others? Any ruling would have to apply to everyone, because that's how common law systems work. So if everyone has to compensate users, then no one will gain an advantage over Google. So the end result is just that Google makes less money while still maintaining their monopoly, and innovation doesn't happen.