
Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy - shopkins
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/29/isp-civil-rights/
======
prklmn
Them wanting people to believe that this will lower the cost of internet
service is laughable. Have TV ads lowered the cost of cable?

We need to think of the internet as a public utility. How absurd would it be
if every time you used water in your home, you heard an advertisement playing
from a speaker in the faucet.

~~~
hackuser
> Them wanting people to believe that this will lower the cost of internet
> service is laughable. Have TV ads lowered the cost of cable?

It's a very important point; this false argument is often used. In truth, in
the marketplace, goods are not priced at 'cost-plus'; i.e., they aren't priced
by taking the cost to the vendor and adding a profit margin.

Goods are priced at the point that will maximize profit for the vendor;
economists would say at the point that maximizes marginal profit.
Colloquially, they charge as much as they can.

The fact that the vendor has another stream of income from Product B doesn't
cause them to reduce their prices for Product A. Microsoft doesn't cut the
price of Windows because they are making so much from Office.

~~~
astrodust
> Microsoft doesn't cut the price of Windows because they are making so much
> from Office.

Microsoft _did_ cut the price of Windows to get people to adopt it early on
_because_ they would be making so much money from Office.

Microsoft Word vs. WordPerfect, Excel vs. Quattro Pro and Lotus 1-2-3. These
battles were won because of Windows and that cemented their position as
industry leader.

Now that Microsoft is in a dominant position they don't cut the price of
Windows as much, but to remain on top they do give the OEMs a very sweet per-
unit deal they really can't refuse.

~~~
hackuser
> Microsoft _did_ cut the price of Windows to get people to adopt it early on
> _because_ they would be making so much money from Office

If that's true (and that's not my understanding) they did it to gain
marketshare and maximize profit, not because they already had enough profit.
In that scenario, they cut the price of Windows to make even more from Office.

~~~
astrodust
They cut _short term_ profits in order to cement long-term ones, so yeah, they
were maximizing profits but over a longer time-scale than one transaction.

------
rfrank
Reminds me of Facebook's arguments in support of Free Basics.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
india-35197062](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35197062)

------
bighi
It makes sense. Poor people can't pay for privacy, now that it became a
feature instead of a right.

~~~
eveningcoffee
First there is strong bias here, so we actually do not know really if it is
true.

Second, lets imagine that poor people would prefer whipping instead of
imprisonment (they can return to work sooner) or fine.

Should we follow the same logic here then and accept it?

~~~
mfringel
In your example, "whipping", "imprisonment", and "[or] fine" are all examples
of punishments for a crime.

Being poor is not a crime.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Of course being poor is not a crime. But we all may make mistakes. For example
exceed the speed limit.

Say, instead of fine 50, I may agree to accept 5 whips with a wooden stick on
my back. Because I need these 50.

So should we accept whipping the poor if they demand it?

~~~
cmdrfred
I don't see how physical violence is on the level of some company paying to
know you visited a porn site.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Both are violating ones decency. On different levels of course. In both
examples decency is traded for money.

I would argue that violation of the online privacy is worse than whipping. No,
the problem is not that somebody knows what specific content you are watching.
The problem is that they find out you are poor.

Youtube once considered that I could be a stereotypic poor person living in
the US. The result was ugly.

------
jasonkostempski
How about ads with privacy? They are not mutually exclusive.

~~~
Chaebixi
> How about ads with privacy? They are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, but internet advertising fetishizes "personalization" and quantitative
metrics, which are predicated on invasions of privacy. Advertisers could put
those toys down, and go back to more traditional, privacy-preserving
advertising, but I don't think they have the maturity and willpower to do so
on their own.

~~~
ouid
you're asserting that the reason why advertising organizations who are
competing to deliver the most valuable advertising product to their clients
end up invading people's privacy is a lack of maturity and willpower? You're
insane if you believe that this problem is not systemic.

~~~
Chaebixi
I was talking collectively about the ad-men and the companies hiring them. And
yes, I think the group lacks the maturity and willpower to act ethically in
the face of competing pressures.

------
cr0sh
I'm wondering how this is all going to play out with ad-blocking software and
plugins...?

Are we going to see where - if you run such software - suddenly you can't
browse any sites, or you can only browse very slowly?

Or will running ad-blocking software be considered illegal or something -
because you're depriving potential profit from somebody?

Will ads slowly take over the entire experience? To the point where you just
don't want to use the internet any longer (or at least the web)?

Will people move back to gopher and ftp (oh, we can only hope)? BBSs? Door
games and MUDs to the rescue?

My wife and I have considered moving to a more rural area of our state - we're
both tired of the city and of people in general. I've lamented about how out
in such areas, internet service would be spotty or non-existent, but you know
what?

Maybe that's a good thing, ultimately. If I need internet for some reason,
I'll just mosey into town, send an email or two, then mosey back home.

These advertisers, their enablers, ISPs, and the corrupt political machine
that supports it all? They can go f--- themselves.

------
meesterdude
wow, give me something i very much don't want while taking away something i
very much want. Sounds more like corporate rights than civil rights.

------
tomjen3
Oh my God, that is _low_.

And quite frankly, for a of people, they're probably right. Especially because
people don't understand what they are giving up, because it somehow has to do
with "computers" and are therefore different from real life.

If, however you were to explain to a person, that this would be the same as
his landlord knowing every single step he took in his home, when he took that
step, what he was listening to when he took the step, who he was taking the
step with, exactly how he looked when he took the step and use it to shoe
advertising, he would cry foul and he would understand that this was not a
small thing.

------
kalleboo
They'd probably also agree to slavery to get food and shelter

~~~
LeifCarrotson
I can't imagine what they would be willing to do for a luxury like health
care!

------
cat199
Low income people also would prefer spam and coolaid every single meal instead
of starving - that doesn't mean it should be promoted as a good diet...

------
cmurf
I think it's asinine "free market" religious nonsense. If we had done this
~100 years ago with phones being rolled out to rural areas, the free market
would have said pay $1000 a month for phone service. Instead the government
forced everyone to pay a subsidy so it'd be cheaper in rural areas, and even
cheaper for poor people anywhere including cities.

No one complained about this.

So now the idea is privacy is a commodity to be purchased, and freedom from
ads is a commodity to be purchased. It's every man for himself, that leads to
more distrust, less cooperation, and more acrimony and I think it's
incompatible with a civil society. This classist variety of
Republican/conservative/capitalist - whatever label to put on it - is vile.
It's neo-aristocracy, and it's anti-democratic.

~~~
cmdrfred
If this business model is not OK for Comcast why is it OK for Google and the
rest of the internet?

------
hatsunearu
Ads _over_ privacy?

Why can't we have Ads vs. Privacy? Income for Comcast can come from either at
the cost of serving ads OR at the cost of privacy--not both. What the fuck?

------
shmerl
They mean Comcast funded corporate control group? Calling it "civil rights" is
an insult. This paid propaganda is just sickening.

------
inputcoffee
On the plus side, the low-income group can probably get the privacy issue
addressed through great customer service.

------
equalunique
I have no problem with ads being targeted to me. It increases the likelihood
something useful will pop up on my screen. I also don't mind using sites which
are ad free, nor do I mind paying for ad-free services like YouTube Red.

------
Overtonwindow
Is there nothing Comcast won't do to screw the public?

------
greedyliberal
This idea makes sense, empirically. There is a cost to provide internet, and
low-income individuals may be more willing to provide a combination of
valuable assets (cash & data), while higher income individuals would be
willing to provide more cash in exchange for no data.

Regardless, the end payment is the same, it's just a question about how you
want to pay.

Edit: For those who think this may be a money grab, remember that the
government is getting tax revenue out of the profits ISPs make from monetizing
your data. While the ethics of this are debatable, the alternative is zero
additional government revenue. So the ethics of privacy need to be weighed
against the ethics of providing programs for communities that could be
beneficial.

~~~
ehsankia
If they provide a _decent_ free connection (at least 10/2), and support it buy
collecting your data, then fine. But to force it on people who pay for a
connection makes zero sense.

