
California governor proposes data dividend - audace
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/california-gov-newsom-calls-for-new-data-dividend-for-consumers.html
======
ilovecaching
Honestly this is just political blame shifting, virtue signaling, and more
empty promises of handouts in the face of California's disastrous finances.
California takes more taxes than practically any other state to fund failed
infrastructure projects, all the while allowing sky high rents in the SF, LA,
and SD areas because the government is locked down by rich landlords
protecting their investments. Not to mention the price hikes on toll roads,
county sales taxes, and general cost of living while homelessness is still
rampant. Our greatest achievement is still an underwater tunnel built in the
70s. I want to see Gavin do something to change California first.

Users are already getting value for their data - the product showing the ads.
People have a choice in whether they want to use gmail and get a free best-in-
class email client, backend storage, and worldwide access to their email. The
trade is that they're participating in an ad platform that is required to
build this infrastructure that is on a never before seen in the history of
humanity scale. Of course Americans and Europeans think it's totally fine to
charge a five to ten bucks a month for a service like that, even when it would
mean forcing the growing lower classes, second and third world countries, and
the tech illiterate to use unsafe and frankly dangerous alternatives. Ads are
a communal investment that allows us to provide services to people who can't
afford those services.

~~~
dalbasal
For the sake of discussion, lets focus on the idea itself, whatever the
motiviations of the politician who's saying it.

>> _Users are already getting value for their data - the product showing the
ads. People have a choice in whether they want to use gmail and get a free
best-in-class email client, backend storage, and worldwide access to their
email. The trade is that they 're participating in an ad platform that_

FB are currently earning $50b pa from advertising, which is largely premised
on FB's data collection on and off the platform. What users get is, by-and-
large, _very_ similar to what they were getting in 2012, when FB was making
$5bn. That 10X increase in revenue (and 10X increase in FB staff/cost) hasn't
gone towards making more/better product. It has gone towards making better
(often more creepy) ad-tech.

At least with television there is competition, and that means ad revenue has
to go towards making more/better programming.

SAAS has negligible marginal cost and often strong network effects. The value
of an ad-platform and many uses of data (especially ad-targetting) also scales
exponentially. This is leading to bad, monopolistic outcomes.

~~~
ilovecaching
That's an incredible selective way to look at it. Google search has almost no
competition. Social media has Snapchat, Twitter, TikTok, and there's really
not a huge bar to entry. New social media apps rise all the time. It's also
your opinion that their product hasn't improved over time, and your conjecture
that that's where the money is going.

Also in television there is much less competition. The TelCos are the worst
monopolies out there. Getting a competitive cable or ISP landscape is a
laughable idea in the US.

~~~
jgust
> really not a huge bar to entry

Critical mass is a huge bar to entry.

------
gnode
I think morally it's the wrong direction, much like paying a dividend to
victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health
effects.

That said, putting a price on data may be what it takes to make companies take
privacy and security seriously, simply because it might make it easier to
argue standing in a lawsuit where data is leaked or mishandled. Similarly,
putting a price on life seems insensitive, but wrongful death lawsuits
motivate safety concerns.

~~~
wutbrodo
> much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to
> offset their deleterious health effects

Out of curiosity, why would this be morally wrong? To avoid reasoning-by-
connotation, replace the word dividend with a word that connotes something
positive (eg reparations): would you say that the functionally-identical
ongoing payment of reparations to victims of pollution would be wrong?

~~~
jdmichal
Not OP, but this is how I see it. It's a bit like the daycare late fines
experiment:

[https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine...](https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine.pdf)

Here's a digestible Freakonomics bit which discusses the same:

[http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-
what...](http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-
do/)

When there was not a price on being late, the price paid was actually moral.
That is, being late was a bad thing to do and so you should feel bad. However,
when a _monetary price_ was introduced, it was no longer morally bad to be
late, as long as you paid the fee. The monetary-price replaced the moral-
price, and it ended up that there were a lot of people willing to pay money
where they weren't willing to pay morally. And so the truancy rate _rose_ with
introduction of late fees.

I would guess that that is what OP meant. If you introduce a price, you can
actually remove even stronger restrictions that are in place based on
morality. Because as long as you're being charged, you can assume the price is
inclusive of your moral hazard.

~~~
wutbrodo
I'm not sure it makes sense to model companies as moral agents in the same way
you would individuals, especially when you're talking about unintuitive moral
reasoning that leans heavily on individual feeling, like the Haifa daycare
study. Hell, I thought it was a pretty common belief around here (and more
broadly) to model corporations as amoral utility-maximizers, in which case a
fine is the central way of aligning incentives (for non-criminal actions).

~~~
gnode
Even when modelling corporations as amoral entities, they still exist within a
morally aware system. They are to some extent beholden to their customers,
employees, and courts of law, which all make decisions of morality about their
actions.

A dividend (or similar payment) generally improves the legitimacy of an
action, whereas being fined for it does not.

------
nkrisc
Good idea, bad implementation. This will legitimize and validate the data
collection and nothing else will change. Will there be even less incentive for
companies to secure the data they're collecting because we'd already have been
paid for it? What should be targeted is how this data is: collected, secured,
and used. Throwing a few dollars our way each year solves nothing.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _This will legitimize and validate the data collection_

Such data collection practices are core to the business models of some of the
most valuable companies on the planet. "Google does it" provides far more
social proof for diluting one's users' privacy than "a California digital
privacy law acknowledges it exists."

~~~
nkrisc
I agree with you. Both things can be true.

------
gabbygab
This isn't a new idea and though it is interesting and has good intentions, it
doesn't solve the problem. As others have pointed out, this will encourage
more data collection and less privacy. The exact opposite of what we want.
Also, the users are already paid with free service.

The problem is that people value the free service more than their data. And
companies value the data more than they value the service.

The tech and hacker community might value our data and privacy more than the
service, but that's clearly not the case with most people.

Imagine if there was a company FaceTome that provides the exact same service
FaceBook does. But FaceTome charged you a dollar for month and collect no data
while FaceBook charges you nothing but collects your data. I guarantee you
that most people would use FaceBook and FaceTome will go out of business as
most people simply don't care about their data or privacy.

~~~
jarjoura
That absolutely was true prior to 2016, but now the post Brexit, post populist
world has shaken a lot of people up. Before people didn't realize what giving
up their data meant, and they still don't, but at least now they are
hypersensitive to it. Hyper-targeting used to mean you didn't see ads for
things you didn't care about, but now it seems to be a weapon for reaching
vulnerable people.

Ads targeting isn't going away, but I'm not so sure a pay to use service
wouldn't stand a chance in this current climate.

~~~
gabbygab
Good point. It's always possible that a paradigm shift can change the culture
and open up the landscape to paid services. But from a purely anecdotal
perspective I'm not seeing the paradigm shift. Instead, I'm seeing the
opposite. People are made aware of the privacy violation and data collection
and almost welcome it. They don't care if they are constantly monitored as
long as they can find the nearest starbucks on their smartphones. Just my
experience. but I'd welcome paid services and simply more competition. The
centralization and domination of tech spaces by a handful of companies is
something we all should be worried about.

------
inetknght
Paying us for our data won't nearly compensate us for the loss of our
democracy. Quite the opposite: it puts an exact price on how cheap that comes
about.

~~~
gfodor
People who are using hyperbolic untruths like "Facebook is stealing our
democracy" or "your data is being sold" should be warned: non-analytical
politicians may introduce regulation framed by these falsehoods. For example,
a law regulating that Facebook not tamper in elections or sell user data would
be a home run for Facebook, because they have done neither.

Speaking the truth in this instance is both more productive and also should
frankly be more scary than the hyperbolic distilled versions that are oft
thrown around: mining user data with AI systems to sell products to measurably
alter human behavior is an unregulated industry and likely should be.

This "dividend" nonsense is transparently ridiculous since it misses the point
of the problem -- that incentives here yield damaging societal effects -- but
again, here we see the result of the "Facebook sells your data"
meme/falsehood: politicians conclude if they just pay users for the data, the
problem is solved, right?

~~~
inetknght
Mining peoples' data to shape political discourse is not a falsehood.

Nonetheless, you are elsewise correct: _mining user data to sell products to
measurably alter human behavior is an unregulated industry and likely should
be_.

------
yumraj
I agree with a lot of posts below. However, my _absolutely biggest_ worry is
that it will allow these companies to get even more personally identifying
information about the user than they probably have today since they will have
to compensate them monetarily.

For example, they will/may start asking for address, phone number, real DoB
and SSN for tax reporting purposes since this would be an income. If I have
multiple gmail/FB/... accounts I may have to drop some or provide the same
information for those, basically removing any doubt that I'm the owner of
those and so and so forth.

Moreover, since this won't be limited to Google & FB, almost any service which
collects data, which would be everyone, would potentially have to ask you for
this information before they let you create an account. It _may_ lead to the
complete loss of anonymity on the Internet.

~~~
r00fus
> For example, they will/may start asking for address, phone number, real DoB
> and SSN for tax reporting purposes since this would be an income.

As I see it Hertzberg's proposal that Newsom announced would be the state
collecting on behalf of the recipient. I would hope this could be done without
providing identifying information.

The alternative proposal that companies pay users directly for their data is
the one we should be wary of, as you're correct - companies would need your
info to pay you. It was put in the article as a byline but didn't have any
supporting commentary.

------
velcrovan
Four years ago I wrote about requiring companies to pass along x% of targeted
ad revenue sales to the users: [https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-
change](https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-change)

I still think this is a good strategy for the purpose of snuffing out the
incentives for surveillance business models.

~~~
cobookman
We do get x% of targeted ad rev. just isn't passed as USD, and instead paid by
giving a free product.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Exactly. Your data is a currency. You spend it at FaceBook. You spend it at
Google.

What I think should happen is, there should be some protections regarding our
data. I should be able to say, ok, FaceBook, I wish to no longer use your
services so you need to stop billing me (collecting my data).

------
sbhn
Before a company will pay you for your data, you will need to prove beyond
doubt your identity, by providing that company with all the id and data you
have. “Sorry, you havn’t provided enough data to validate your ID yet”, is the
get out clause in that business model. The journey to hell, is paved with good
intentions, and there are preists all along the way telling you which way it
is.

~~~
e40
Or, it will allow them to validate what data they have on you and charge more
for it!

------
dalbasal
This kind of echoes what Jaron Lanier has been proposing. I think they get at
something true, in terms of moral sentiment, but I don't understand how it
would be implmented.

How do you set prices? How does this lead to better incentives and outcomes,
rather than a scheme where people can get $4 a year and the industry gets a
moral blank cheque.

 _Currently,_ our Google & FBs data is being monetized mostly via ad-
targetting, or via (for example) optimizing the FB newsfeed algorithim so that
you spend more time on FB, where they can put that ad-targetting data to work.

Google's captcha-powered self driving cars demonstrates a point, but at least
for now, the value of data is mostly ad-related (or
business/political/military/police intelligence, which overlaps with ad-
targetting in worrying ways).

Paying consumers to be advertized to ... isn't that a black mirror premise?

As of now, I'm more inclined to the "make-the-data-public" direction. For
democracy concerns, for example, it would be valuable if the public could

------
Someone
So, has the time for project Xanadu
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu#Original_17_rul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu#Original_17_rules))
come?

If so, do we have the technology?

------
ucaetano
Wait until people find out that the cost to implement, monitor, support and
regulate something like this will be higher than the dividends they'll be
getting...

------
rb808
bing pays you rewards, which for me adds up to like $20/yr. I'd hope there
would be more competition between search engines so they compete with benefits
for users. For most queries google isn't that much better, use DuckDuckGo for
privacy or other engines.

~~~
someone7x
People who see me work invariably ask: Why do you use bing?

And I invariably answer, in my best Idiocracy: 'Cause they pay me every time I
do!

------
linkmotif
This would just normalize and turn surveillance capitalism into a casino. It
would create the illusion that ordinary people win, except the house actually
always wins, and in this case the house would always win by a lot.

------
RickJWagner
Wow, that guy looks a lot like Mitt Romney.

------
ckastner
> _“California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is
> created from their data,” Newsom said from the State Capitol in Sacramento._

This is such an odd sentence to read, post-GDPR, because it sounds as if
consumers have no idea what their data is being used for, and/or have no
control over how it's processed, and just have to subject themselves to it.

The GDPR literally starts off by recognizing personal data and the protection
thereof as a fundamental right, and regulates how _others_ must subject
themselves in order to process it.

~~~
wastedhours
> post-GDPR

As pervasive as the GDPR is, a Californian in California isn't subject to it,
and outside of people interested in tech, would make an assumption they
probably know little about it?

~~~
ckastner
I think you misunderstood my point, which was that we're clearly seeing a
massive global trend towards privacy and rights thereto. The GDPR is a
manifestation of this trend, and has further sensitized consumers.

Cambridge Analytics happened at a time when neither processors nor consumers
were yet very sensitive to the topic of privacy. This has changed
dramatically, and the GDPR is not the cause thereof, but a consequence
thereof.

Of course the GDPR is not binding in California, but it should be at least
_thought-provoking_ in California.

~~~
acct1771
Double entendre on processors.

