3 ms·

People who use Twitter are paying for the product, just inadvertently. I think there's a deeper issue at work here that something like App.net addresses. Ther

People who use Twitter are paying for the product, just inadvertently. I think there's a deeper issue at work here that something like App.net addresses. There is a complete disconnect between buyer and seller. When someone is using Twitter, they are paying for it by selling their data, but this is just implied. I think that the industry could solve a whole bunch of issues by: 1.) Charging for their service. 2.) Paying people for their data. It could be that both balance each other out. It could be some other mechanism. Maybe you earn money, maybe you hold on to your data and you just pay for the full cost of using a service. Whatever the solution, I think we should start using the term 'customer' and making explicit what is already implied when we're using a 'free' service.

dchuk 14y ago
Explicitly paying people for their usage data will overtly change their usage habits because they'll be aware of the fact that everything they do will be sold off to advertisers. A good portion of the value of usage data is that it's not "tainted" by the fact that users are conscious about the tracking in the first place. I guarantee over 99% of Facebook's billion+ users have no idea that's really how Facebook is making their money. Sure, they might see the ads, but they don't know how those ads really work. As for calling users "customers" because their data is being sold, well, no, that's not an accurate name for them per the definition of "customer": cus·tom·er/ˈkəstəmər/ Noun: A person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or other business. A person or thing of a specified kind that one has to deal with: "a tough customer". The label "customer" implies a conscious action of making a purchase. Twitter users are not actively purchasing anything, they're just creating usage data that makes money on the back end.
- williamcotton 14y ago
  People should be aware of the fact that what they do will be sold to advertisers. I'm not going to go as far as to support legislature that enforces this awareness, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple of decades that this idea is thrown around by lawmakers. I wouldn't be surprised if lawmakers set to make it so everyone had the right to make sure their information was not sold to advertisers. I'm personally under the impression that regulation causes more problems than it solves in the majority of situations so I'm hoping that the industry self-regulates and companies like Facebook and Twitter allow me to pay for their services and opt-out of their business of selling my private information to others. I'm not really sure why you defined "customer" for me. I never said that Facebook and Twitter users are currently customers, but that they should be. It is dishonest to have the business taking place "on the back end" of things and to purposefully hide such transactions from people. I also find it arrogant to think that it is advantageous to shield such financial complexity from people because they don't want to think about it or won't understand it. So if Facebook and Twitter want to continue to be dishonest and arrogant companies, by all means, let them continue, but I think it will be part of their ultimate demise, either from increased consumer awareness on topics such as information privacy and digital identity, or from legislation.

dchuk 14y ago

Explicitly paying people for their usage data will overtly change their usage habits because they'll be aware of the fact that everything they do will be sold off to advertisers. A good portion of the value of usage data is that it's not "tainted" by the fact that users are conscious about the tracking in the first place. I guarantee over 99% of Facebook's billion+ users have no idea that's really how Facebook is making their money. Sure, they might see the ads, but they don't know how those ads really work. As for calling users "customers" because their data is being sold, well, no, that's not an accurate name for them per the definition of "customer": cus·tom·er/ˈkəstəmər/ Noun: A person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or other business. A person or thing of a specified kind that one has to deal with: "a tough customer". The label "customer" implies a conscious action of making a purchase. Twitter users are not actively purchasing anything, they're just creating usage data that makes money on the back end.

williamcotton 14y ago
People should be aware of the fact that what they do will be sold to advertisers. I'm not going to go as far as to support legislature that enforces this awareness, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple of decades that this idea is thrown around by lawmakers. I wouldn't be surprised if lawmakers set to make it so everyone had the right to make sure their information was not sold to advertisers. I'm personally under the impression that regulation causes more problems than it solves in the majority of situations so I'm hoping that the industry self-regulates and companies like Facebook and Twitter allow me to pay for their services and opt-out of their business of selling my private information to others. I'm not really sure why you defined "customer" for me. I never said that Facebook and Twitter users are currently customers, but that they should be. It is dishonest to have the business taking place "on the back end" of things and to purposefully hide such transactions from people. I also find it arrogant to think that it is advantageous to shield such financial complexity from people because they don't want to think about it or won't understand it. So if Facebook and Twitter want to continue to be dishonest and arrogant companies, by all means, let them continue, but I think it will be part of their ultimate demise, either from increased consumer awareness on topics such as information privacy and digital identity, or from legislation.