
Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data - ohjeez
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21298919/andrew-yang-big-tech-data-dividend-project-facebook-google-ubi
======
jerf
It doesn't work. There isn't enough money in the data for anyone to care. Your
entire data load might be worth $100 a _year_. The only reason it funds
massive industries is cost-effective aggregation by dirt-cheap computer power.

I ran the numbers on Facebook a while back:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462402](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462402)
It comes out that they're making roughly $17/yr in annual revenue per user.
_Revenue_ , not _profit_. Cross checking my numbers against some other
sources, it may be now more like $40 or $50/yr. Profits, the thing they could
actually afford to share with you, look like maybe $10/year. So, what,
Facebook is going to cut me a check for $5 every year? Google sends me another
5-spot, and a few other companies send me a dollar or less? What problem does
that solve?

~~~
erentz
When I see these breakdowns I think I’d pay $17 per year for Facebook without
all of the ads and tracking and data mining and knowing I was just getting a
good service optimized for its customers.

Why not ban tracking and ad targeting and selling personal data, and force
that business model to go extinct, and now they have to start charging for
service and their users become actual customers.

~~~
asciident
I would not, I'd rather they target me with personalized ads like they are
doing now. I hate paying for things, and I imagine neither would 99% of users.

Since me and the other 99% of people contribute most of the value to Facebook
for you, would you be willing to subsidize the other 99% of people and pay
$1700/year?

~~~
arghwhat
> neither would 99% of users.

That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

> would you be willing to subsidize the other 99%

That would just mean that facebook is an unwanted and unprofitable service
which then wouldn't exist.

Which is not a problem at all.

~~~
asciident
> That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

On other social media websites that offer "pay to remove ads" versus "get
personalized ads", like Reddit or Twitch, about 1% of users pay. Wikipedia
asks for donations and very few people donate, percentage-wise. So I think if
you want to show a substantially higher number, say even 10%, you'll need to
provided evidence. Even if 10% of users paid, would they be willing to be
$170/year?

> That would just mean that facebook is an unwanted and unprofitable service
> which then wouldn't exist. Which is not a problem at all.

I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion, that it's unwanted. I want
Facebook, and I want it for free with personalized ads. Same with Gmail, Yelp,
Reddit, Google Maps, Instagram, Youtube, and a bunch of other web services.
Not sure how that's so hard to understand, that this is the business model I
prefer.

Same with newspapers. I don't want to pay the full cost of making a newspaper
(probably $10 or so), but rather I'd purchase a very cheap subsidized
newspaper with ads for $1. Or free apps with in-app purchases. Doesn't mean
it's unwanted if people aren't willing to pay the cost price for it.

~~~
arghwhat
> On other social media websites

That sort of statement requires data to back it up.

> I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion, that it's unwanted. I want
> Facebook, and I want it for free

If no one wants to pay for it, it's unwanted. I'm sure you'd also want a
mansion, butlers, a private jet, etc. for free. That you want something for
free means _nothing_ , and is entirely irrelevant.

Facebook in its current form also doesn't care about what _you_ want. They
care about how they can please their _paying customers_ , with you being one
of their many products they can sell.

~~~
sanderjd
> If no one wants to pay for it, it's unwanted. I'm sure you'd also want a
> mansion, butlers, a private jet, etc. for free. That you want something for
> free means nothing, and is entirely irrelevant.

The person you're replying to spoke directly to this by saying they want those
services not merely for free, but for free with personalized ads. That is, by
just saying "for free", you are removing an important part of the context. I
suspect they would also sign up for a service that offered a mansion, butlers,
a private jet, etc. for free with personalized ads, if anybody were offering
such a thing.

I'm personally in the boat of preferring to pay for things that are important
to me and hope to see more movement over time to subscription business models
that work, but it does not make sense to write off people who want the
opposite, who prefer to get things for free with personalized ads. The
revealed preference in society seems to be that there are a lot more people
who feel that way than people who prefer to pay for subscriptions. These
people aren't just being duped, everybody knows how free services work because
it is a very frequent and well publicized topic of conversation, it's just
that they are ok or even happy with it.

I think what happens a lot, because I think it's what I experience personally
very often, is that when we find ourselves with a minority opinion that we
really think is right, that we conclude the majority with a different opinion
from ours is just ignorant or being manipulated. But in reality, they are
often just as knowledgeable as we are, but have simply drawn different
conclusions. Speaking personally, this is always a bitter pill to swallow.

------
awillen
I'm all for people controlling their data and being fully informed of how it's
being used, but I just don't understand the idea that you should be paid for
the data that you give to companies when you choose to use their products.

The payment that you get is the products. You don't get a check from Google,
but you get to use Google, which is an incredibly useful tool.

I like Yang, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. We should be focused
on giving people control over their data and awareness of how it's being used
so they can make informed decisions, not insisting they get paid for it.

~~~
hinkley
I think there's a category error here around 'choice'.

Who is choosing? I can walk into a store and look around without making a
commitment to buy a product. I may leave realizing that there is nothing for
me here. I chose not to become a customer. Or I chose to be a customer and
there was a ritual exchanging of gifts and information which is relatively
clear to all parties.

Websites don't work that way. I can't 'browse' without them already tracking
me. I haven't agreed to anything yet. The transition happens without my
awareness. It's predatory.

~~~
strgcmc
You may be (un)pleasantly surprised by the amount of physical/real-world
tracking of in-store traffic that stores are engaging in now. In many physical
stores, you don't really have the option of "'browsing' without them already
tracking me" either. Worse yet, there's not even a pretense of viewing/accept
some Terms and Conditions when you physically enter the store (at least
websites pay the lip service of having a T&C posted or a cookie consent pop-
up).

One random example from 2018 (so, probably a lot more advanced and widespread
by now): [https://www.adweek.com/digital/adobes-newest-labs-project-
ca...](https://www.adweek.com/digital/adobes-newest-labs-project-can-track-in-
store-customers-in-real-time/)

~~~
hinkley
I would characterize this as "the situation has been bad for so long in the
online world that it has now metastasized into the physical world".

Could be I'm wrong about that, but how long do you have to embolden people
before they do something truly brazen?

~~~
Nasrudith
They have been engaged in that sort of marketing and tracking at least back
when computers were big iron only - although to a lesser degree by watching
customers and tweaking stores accordingly. Milk is in the back of the grocery
store? Not because of insulation or anything like that but because people
often pop into the grocery store for it and "running the gauntlet" results in
them picking up more items than their initial goal. Not entirely comparable in
capabilities of course.

------
kumarm
Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I am no
fan of Facebook but I am using the service free of cost and in return company
collects data for targeted advertising.

Shouldn't this be more targeted at cable companies which collect a monthly fee
and again sell your data? And may be forcing Big Tech to provide a paid
alternative which doesn't use data collected?

~~~
gnulinux
Facebook is also making money off of you by showing you ads. It's a question
of how much is enough. Facebook is charging nothing, sure, but what if the
value they take from us (our data, our ad attention+clicks) is more valuable
than the value they give us (a free social media)?

~~~
reverend_gonzo
Well if what they gave us was more valuable than what they took, they wouldn’t
be a very profitable company, would it?

~~~
beojan
The value of what they provide isn't necessarily it's cost.

That's the whole reason we trade. The value of a good is different to
different people. If a book is worth £5 to me, and £1 to you, then if I give
you £2.50 for the book we've both gained more than we've lost.

------
deegles
I think this is a great idea but measures would have to be taken to prevent
Hollywood accounting from erasing payouts to consumers.

Establishing a value for each data point gathered and an ongoing payout from
derived data (e.g. training a machine learning model using your search habits
should not mean you get nothing if the original data isn't kept) is crucial.

Also, keeping track of all of those payouts would also be a huge burden for
even Google, I can't imagine for a small startup. This also needs to be
considered so that it doesn't stifle innovation.

Some napkin math: assuming 1 billion MAU for Google Search and around $30B in
revenue for Q1 2020, that's $30 in revenue per MAU per quarter or around
$120/year. This would be before costs of course and represents the ceiling of
what they would be able to pay.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/alphabet-googl-
earnings-q1-2...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/alphabet-googl-
earnings-q1-2020.html)

[https://techjury.net/blog/google-search-
statistics/](https://techjury.net/blog/google-search-statistics/)

------
Sodman
I know it might sound like a minor ding, but the signup form doesn't allow
apostrophes or accents in the name fields. Many people (myself included) have
these in their legal names. I know this is US focused, but for an org that's
all about data, this feels like a big oversight.

For starters, _most_ data-hoarding websites allow these characters these days,
so it's just one more obstacle when trying to match and verify "my" data. I
guess let's hope I signed up to every website with the same e-mail address?

On a similar note, it also rejected my 5-digit valid zip code as "invalid", so
I'm unable to sign up at all.

~~~
bena
This is another reason why I can't understand anyone who works in software of
what is generally thought of as "technology" likes Yang. He does not
understand. He likes to talk about "MATH". And while the numbers he uses may
work out, I wonder how he acquires those numbers in the first place.

Also, it often seems like he needs "ENGLISH" more than "MATH". Because
"technology" is a meaningless word. A carburetor is technology. A ramp is
technology. Just about everything is technology in some fashion.

So. We already tax technology, if indirectly, through taxing goods and
services.

Then there's the railing against the large targeted-advertising companies (I
guess that's what they have most in common). There's technically been a trade
already. Our data for their services.

And then there's the fact that he's now doing the thing he's complaining
about: data harvesting.

And to top _all_ of that off, the issues you just mentioned. This guy can't
even harvest data effectively or efficiently. Or identify people who can. And
I'm supposed to trust him to create legislation affecting those companies? Or
identify people who can? He has just blatantly demonstrated he does not have
those skills.

~~~
zentiggr
> Then there's the railing against the large targeted-advertising companies (I
> guess that's what they have most in common). There's technically been a
> trade already. Our data for their services.

So for whatever service they offer, we give them data. And extra secondary
income from every third party they pass that same data along to. And the risk
of first party data breaches. And the risk of data breaches from any other
party that gets access. And likely that same data getting scraped by
aggregators just from being used.

The deal is by no means equal, and we the customer pay dearly.

I'm quite happy with the idea of making it expensive to retain any data that's
not required by law or explicit operational need.

------
hypewatch
This sounds like an enforcement nightmare. It’s a nice idea, but how would it
actually work?

So we would get some sort of commission from Instagram for every ad we view.
And the government will need to track this for every Californian, then divvy
up a couple dollars per person each year.

I know there are some Yang fans on HN and I don’t want to get too political
here but his ideas are too oversimplified, from the $1k UBI thing to this they
feel like the left’s version of “build a wall”. They’re simple ideas that are
great for social media attention but ultimately oversimplify an inherently
complex problem.

Again, I’m not trying to make a political argument either way here, just
pointing out how social media seems to incentivize our leaders to oversimplify
policy ideas.

~~~
linuxftw
> This sounds like an enforcement nightmare. It’s a nice idea, but how would
> it actually work?

The same way anything works. The largest players write the regulations, stand
up a new regulatory body, require anyone that can be remotely considered a
data collector or warehouse or whatever term they come up with to 'pre-
certify' their operation at a 6 or 7 figure sum to crowd out any upstart
players.

------
jakelazaroff
I know this is well–meaning but I think it's ultimately misguided. The root
issue isn't that people aren't getting paid for their data — it's that their
data is commodified in the first place.

~~~
treve
Forcing payment for the data will make some of these business model not work,
and I'm all for that. It's not about users receiving a few dollars, it's
companies having to pay all them.

------
aminozuur
Facebook is giving me much more real value than they could ever make from me
in dollars.

~~~
machinehermit
hah love the sarcasm.

~~~
tootie
If it didn't provide value, no one would be using it.

~~~
AlexandrB
I'd like to introduce you to an entire field of endeavor called "marketing".
Non-industrial diamonds don't provide value, yet people are regularly buying
them for ridiculous sums[1].

[1]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-
an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/)

~~~
warkdarrior
Diamonds do provide value in non-industrial settings, most commonly as an
indicator of a person's appreciation for another person. They are in the same
value class as cut flowers, although of course at a different price point.

------
jszymborski
There are too many perverse incentives here. You end up with the most
vulnerable people further their vulnerability.

What we really need is a data tax. The more data you collect, the more taxes
you need to pay. You can even index it against company income and have a lower
data tax bracket for small start-ups and a higher data tax bracket for large
orgs.

User data needs to be treated as a liability, not an asset.

~~~
drivebycomment
I think this is the right framing. Treat user data like pollution. If you leak
it or accidentally share with others, put a big enough fine. Have strict rules
around safe procedures and handling of the data, and sanction companies for
violating them. Make the cost of keeping data high enough that they would stop
frivolous collections.

------
gentleman11
This is a mistaken approach. The problem with data harvesting is the threat to
future human freedom, not an injustice about paying people fairly

~~~
pphysch
Economic inequality and freedom are closely linked

~~~
gentleman11
Having a few extra dollars a month doesn’t prevent the government from
punishing you for doing something they don’t like. For example, Hong Kong is
relatively wealthy compared to the rest of China, but participating a protest
in Hong Kong can still lead to jail time (or far worse now). Paying them a few
dollars for their data does nothing for them but potentially let them take one
extra day off work per year to protest, although with the censorship and
monitoring that China does, is that safe?

------
popcornarsonist
> The project’s signup form asks for people to put in all of the email
> addresses they use online to help identify how many platforms are currently
> profiting off of an individual’s data. It also asks for users to provide
> their PayPal information so any money that could eventually be gained from
> platforms could be deposited directly into a user’s account.

This seems like a wild thing to be asking for at this stage in the project.

------
nickvincent
Hey HN, I wanted to share this very related, but completely unaffiliated and
independent initiative I’ve been a part of:
[https://datadividends.org](https://datadividends.org) . To quote the website,
we’re “an ad-hoc team of scholars and practitioners (without any political
affiliation) that formed to answer the questions: What are data dividends? Why
should we have them? How should they work? “

Very coincidentally, we just presented on the topic of data dividends at the
RadicalxChange conference two days ago
([https://www.radicalxchange.org/2020-conference/](https://www.radicalxchange.org/2020-conference/),
VODs still processing) and launched a website with a summary of our report
yesterday. Was very surprised (and excited) to see this very similarly named
project launch today!

While we’re very much interested in tackling the same core problem, I think
the group agrees with many of the concerns raised in this thread (paychecks
will be small, administrative challenges, etc.). We’re also very concerned
about the potential for “privacy as a luxury good” and the fact that a data
dividend could exacerbate existing inequalities.

Our main philosophical difference is that we argue that this discussion should
be framed around the idea that the data fueling profitable intelligent
technologies is “our data”, not “my data”. As such, our ideas for “disbursing
the dividend” are focused on promoting collective benefit, e.g. through
programs well-known to reduce inequality, support for "data unions", and new
infrastructure to support the sharing of data (and ideally, increase
innovation, competition, etc.).

Overall, I think increased discussion around this topic is really great!

------
buboard
No, not all users andrew. Pay the users that create content that gets popular,
not people just for existing. Creating a data trail is not valuable IP.

I m actually surprised at the amount of content that people give away to these
platforms, even here.

A major reason is that there is no legal mechanism for users to directly pay
other users. Things like brave attention token are steps in the right
direction

------
lordgrenville
In terms of assessing the value of one individual's data, shouldn't there be
some consideration for the fact that it's worth nothing to that person on
their own? I can't sell my data on the free market. It's a transaction over an
object that has value in only one direction.

~~~
dannyw
Is that really true? There are "customer research" apps that will offer you
small, but non-trivial amounts of money for basically selling your personal
information.

~~~
hansvm
It's partially true. You can't sell most of your personal information. E.g.,
when your name, face, and weight end up in somebody's dataset it'll be because
of the "free" social fitness app you used rather than because you were able to
directly connect with anyone who cared about that data and work out a
reasonable price.

~~~
dannyw
So you're saying a marketplace hasn't been built yet. That's like saying your
car had no value until Uber was built (only taxis have value), or short term
rental homes had no value until Airbnb was built (only hotels have value).

Your data today has value. It's how you get access to Google, YouTube,
Facebook, Instagram, etc, for the monetary cost of $0.00. That is value, and
yes, you can't cash that out to $ _yet_. That's because a marketplace hasn't
been built yet, but maybe legislation could create such a market and give
consumers a fair shake.

~~~
hansvm
Kind of. I think we're talking past each other.

The ancestor comment said they "can't sell [their] data on the free market,"
and we contested that statement and each other a bit.

Bringing up that a marketplace hasn't been built yet and that the data still
has value is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation I thought we were having.
FWIW, I agree with you -- a marketplace hasn't been built (not that I'm sure
it should be), and our data definitely has value.

------
dang
The project site was also posted
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23599774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23599774)),
but we merged those comments hither because people were complaining that they
couldn't view that page.

------
maerF0x0
This seems to be an area full of quandries.

If data is your property, then you can sell it to someone else permanently
without royalty. Expect to see signup forms that say your first month of SaaS
app is $0.01 and you will receive a credit for $0.01 for selling your data to
them.

If data is Intellectual Property subject to royalty like other intellectual
property (say, stock photos for example) then you can assign away the
royalties and we can expect it to be assigned away in the signup form or EULA.

If data is a form of labor it will be subject to minimum wage laws and other
employment law.

If data is intrinsic to the individual it cannot be sold or reassigned (like i
cannot sell or reassign my other human rights).

------
nisten
A divident, while logically possible, may be practically quite difficult to
implement and regulate effectively. Not that we shouldn't try to do it, it'll
just be hard.

I think there's a simpler way to solve this. This is just an exchange, you're
getting a product, and you're giving away to them and all subsequent third
parties all the rights to your data in exchange. That's your payment.

The problem here is that this is your only form of payment by default for that
tier of product and that sucks.

In my opinion it should illegal to do that by default without first giving the
customer the option to pay in money in exchange that exact same product.

And if I'm paying I don't want you sharing my personally identifiable
information shared with no analytics, no tracking, no third-party consulting
and if you can't pass a security audit or can't figure out how to
anonymize/encrypt my information properly, I don't want you accessing it in
clear form at all outside your company promises including from your remote
employees. I think that's fair.

If you're startup and can't afford to pay for a credible audit, then you
shouldn't be allowed to even know my first name. You'll have to use a secure
and audited intermediary to provide you that in anonymized form and you figure
out how to handle on your own.

------
monadic2
I’d be much more comfortable if I could pay Big Tech to _not_ share my data.

~~~
nisten
Me too, in exchange for a product I don't want to be confined to a form of
payment which only allows one to give away rights to their data in exchange
for the product.

I'd like the legal right to always be shown the option to pay money instead.

------
windycity123
What is interesting is that in essence, our data is the payment that we make
to use facebook, instagram etc.... So if companies are now taxed on data or
required to pay people for the right to use their data this would seriously
alter incentives which would also change the content that we, the users, have
access to. These companies will not have the incentive to provide the same
quality content and product as their profits have been slashed. Data is also
used not to just send targeted ads but to conduct beta testing and software
updates. Without access to free data, Facebook would start charging people for
having an account and I'm sure many would rather not do that. This basically
got me to thinking about how consumers can get a greater hold of their data
without dismantling the relationship between these consumers and online
platforms.

------
pdonis
I don't want to get paid for letting big tech use my data. I want big tech to
not use my data in the first place.

------
ngngngng
I wish Facebook didn't exist. The sad truth is that if I delete my Facebook
there are a couple hundred people I would never hear from again. Countless
community events I would never be invited to because Facebook is all anyone
uses to get the word out around here.

------
_curious_
"We are asking you to sign a written authorization giving DDP the authority to
act as your authorized agent to exercise your legal rights under the CCPA."

OK, so first question - what is this DDP entity?

A "movement" doesn't tell me who or what entity I am assigning agency to,
endorsing, giving money to, etc.

The article omits this key piece of information and nor does the website
disclose on a cursory glance! Is it a gov org? nonprofit, for profit, coop,
other? And equally important: who legally runs/owns it? Am I missing the
obvious here?!

Without a clear and upfront answer to the basics here, I would not recommend
anyone blindly engage with / opt into anything like this regardless of whose
brainchild it is.

------
baron816
Why would you pay for something people are giving you for free? If people are
volunteering that information, I think it’s fine to use it to finance the free
product they’re getting. I’m totally free to not use Google, Facebook, Amazon,
etc.

~~~
AlexandrB
I would like you to explain to me how you could avoid using Google given that
Google Analytics is present in some 70% of the top 10,000 websites and
reCaptcha also has huge penetration.

~~~
bryan_w
Browse in incognito mode. It shouldn't give GA any tractable info. That's the
easiest way without installing a browser plugin, but if you do a 2 second
plugin search, you'll find many that block Google and the 1000's of other
companies that are tracking you that you don't know about

This is completely a technical problem that can be solved in software

------
happy-dude
The information provided in this article is sparse; Yang discusses the vision
of where this project was probably inspired by in his "Yang Speaks" podcast:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNCVHcZp5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNCVHcZp5s)
episode w/ Jaron Lanier (re: data unions, brokers, etc.)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WuwG_fYJ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WuwG_fYJ4)
pre-launch episode

Make sure to check out the FAQ and Privacy Policy of the project to get a
better grasp of what legal framework and actions they are taking.

------
sohamsankaran
In a weird way, this would be a regressive policy -- the data of the richest
people is worth orders of magnitude more, so this would just make the rich,
well, richer. Increasing corporate tax rates would help the poor much more.

~~~
redisman
This sounds wrong. The value of data is in the massive amount of datapoints.
If I had a data company I would always pick the large masses and discard the
outliers if given the choice.

~~~
sohamsankaran
If you want to target ads, which is where the majority of the money in 'data'
comes from, personal data about rich people that helps target ads to them is a
lot more valuable than personal data about poor people.

------
lucasb9
The online "user data" business model is identical to the highway, or the
magazine, or the mall, or the airport business model. You create traffic by
providing access at or below cost, and make money by selling ads to all the
traffic you create. Should highways, airports or magazines pay users money
from the revenue they generate by selling ads around their high traffic
properties? Another consideration is about the proportion of an ad's cost that
can be attributable to the data these companies have, which depends on the
degree to which the ad is targeted or not. For example, are keyword-tied
search ads and the money Google makes from them related at all to any data
they may have on you?

Furthermore, any attempt to account for the "price" of used data (basically
just something to id you online) should be matched by a valuation of the true
value this companies offer in compensation. In the case of google: what's the
value to users from having fast, accurate search; petabytes upon petabytes of
free content (from the mundane to the educational) on youtube ($5 - $9/mo if
you go by Disney+/Netflix prices); and entire office suite ($5 - $12/mo
looking at many SaaS/Office 365) kept up to date; a quality email client
($99/yr for Hey); a free OS for your phone and computer (Android/Chromebooks);
a high quality global mapping service w/ turn-by-turn GPS ($300 devices back
in the day?); a Calendar ($3 - $9/mo looking at competitors), 15GB of cloud
storage; unlimited storage for all your photos in the cloud (say the average
user has 50Gb of photos, thats $3 - $9/mo).... and I could go on. In the case
of Facebook I believe there is genuine value in having a directory of all your
friends/acquaintances/family, and a repository for memories either there or on
instagram.

I see the techlash and policies like this data-dividend as a very natural
impulse from society to get a spoonfull from the honeypot these companies
created. Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is right. Our economic
model is premised on the idea that the fruits of your labor/property/ideas are
yours to keep, however spectacular they may be. Keep in mind that this policy
does nothing to change the way this companies operate, or question their
overall effects on society.

~~~
justicezyx
The analogy between online ads and highway is very weak.

#1 highway is essential, they provide transport. Online ads on the other hand,
is not. In the sense that most ads are for arousing consumerism impulse. (No I
am not arguing ads is wrong or something, I was saying if they are not as
essential ad highway)

#2 highway is physical and does not infringe privacy. Online ads are virtual,
and blindly intrusive to privacy.

#3 highway is regulated as infrastructure, internet ads companies are not. And
they are ferociously resisting being treated as infrastructure.

------
kashfi
... Anyone else having issues verifying their phone? I've never had such a
buggy experience verifying my phone.

It seems like after you complete the application, the green submit button, as
well as the text fields in the following sequences, are buggy -- single click
doesn't seem to pick up the action, double click seems to upset it, tab into
the button to press Enter doesn't work. This is all via Chrome.

------
Calvin02
I foresee tech companies creating paid and non-paid versions of their
products. If you don't want your data monetized, please pay $50/month for
Google Search, GMail, Maps, and YouTube. If you are okay with the value
exchange of ads and free services, then you are opting into a mutually agreed
upon arrangement with no compensation.

~~~
mc32
This would create a weird paradox:

Advertisers want people with disposable income.

People without much disposable income get really targeted ads (they won’t pay
for the privacy).

People with disposable income pay for the privacy service and don’t get ads or
get poorly targeted ads.

It then becomes more like traditional ads that get broadcast to everyone.

So the policy shoots itself in the foot.

~~~
cyberlurker
I think you overestimate how much people with disposable income value internet
privacy.

I'm sure Google has good numbers on this from YouTube premium.

------
mizay7
Yeh, this seems backwards, the users pay the companies for free products with
their data and their attention. That's the business model. Why would Facebook
and Google run those servers if they couldn't have profitably targeted ads.

If you want privacy honoring products you want the users to pay money for the
service.

~~~
luisvictoria
This argument makes perfect sense, the problem starts when companies like
Facebook start tracking individuals who do not use their services.

~~~
mizay7
Agreed, and that should be illegal. Having companies pay for data of non-users
as part of Yang's proposal doesn't change anything.

------
stjohnswarts
What we really need is a new amendment to the Constitution about digital
privacy rights, end to surveillance without a warrant, digital documetns are
the same as "secures in your papers" from a constitutional perspective, etc.
Half measures like Yang's simply won't work.

~~~
chillacy
Perhaps a "digital bill of rights"?

> Earlier in his campaign, Yang said that data should be classified as
> property, and users should have certain rights over how their data is
> collected and used by tech companies. Yang offers more insight on what these
> rights would look like in Thursday’s proposal, and he pledges to pass a
> “Digital Bill of Rights, ensuring ownership of data, control over how it’s
> used, and compensation for its use” if he is elected president.

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20964834/andrew-yang-
dig...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20964834/andrew-yang-digital-ads-
tax-elizabeth-warren-antitrust-tech-facebook-google)

And for a balance of opinion, a counter-argument on why this might be bad:

> Or let's take the central element of yang's proposal, establishing data as a
> property right and allowing individuals to be compensated for the use of
> that data if it is used by a big tech company like Google or Facebook when
> selling to advertisers. This again is a bit of a problem as tech expert Gigi
> sohn said on this show recently.

> Gigi makes a pretty convincing case there that actual ownership of your data
> could have a lot of problems, while the core underlying concern is more
> about data privacy. why not just tackle that instead?

[https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/470719-saagar-enjeti-
yangs...](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/470719-saagar-enjeti-yangs-plan-
to-regulate-big-tech-misses-the-mark)

------
darren0
This brings up a concept I never really thought of. Is it better to approach
this problem from the perspective of privacy vs ownership. If it is not a
tangible asset, ownership seems tricky. It's like IP law. Do you really own
the observation of your behavior?

------
anjel
This would have saved a lot of problems if proposed in 2008. Now that FANG has
trillions in the back, if it's not a retroactive dividend, Ill-gotten gains
get retained and this is not much more than closing the barn door after the
cows are gone.

------
isoskeles
Ironically they’re using CCPA as an excuse to push this.

CCPA is supposed to help keep my data more safe. How exactly will my data be
more safe upon giving Facebook some of my banking info and government id so I
can officially receive payment for my data?

------
Nasrudith
The entire meme of "selling their data" is deeply wrong. They take pains to
minimize the leakage - if it was all available they could practically DYI it
when targetting customers losing only the hosted ads themselves.

------
liquid153
What a useless policy to spend time on. No one cares except the vocal geeks
and if it did go through I’m sure people will be excited to get a $5 check
once a month.

~~~
boublepop
Your missing the forest for the trees. Unionizing workers isn’t about everyone
getting a penny more because they are organized. It’s about restoring power
balance by organizing the many who contribute more than the few.

If you get everyone who contribute data to Facebook, google, twitter etc.
organized, then you can do a hell of a lot more than just get a couple of
dollars for each person. You might even get them to clean up major parts of
their act. Because a threat of “tomorrow we will request GDPR removal of all
content from 1million users unless you do x” is much more of a threat than
#quitfacebook will ever be.

------
transitivebs
It's ironic that they require you to input "as many of your emails as
possible" in order to fight on your behalf.

Fighting fire with fire, I guess? Seems wrong though...

~~~
oneplane
It's more ironic that they apparently can't be trusted with data because they
geoblock GDPR-countries which you would only do if you know ahead of time that
you can't deliver your website without datamining your visitors.

------
aabbcc1241
Beside the few penny, I want diversity of internet back ...

------
angel_j
An incentive for people to post a greater volume of shit to the web than they
do already? I approve this acceleration toward total data anarchy.

------
AlexandrB
What I'd like to see come out of this is some way to evaluate the value of
data collected so that it can be compared year-to-year. One reason the
antitrust argument is hard to make is that the average Facebook user pays
nothing and it's hard to argue that, for example, Facebook's monopolistic
behaviour is harming the consumer. If we could track the "cost" to the
consumer in terms of the value of data collected and observe an increase over
time it would lend credence to a case for antitrust action.

------
creato
Funny, I'd consider it more valuable to me to not give FB my payment info than
to accept whatever pittance my data is worth.

------
kazinator
Being paid means nothing if you don't have the power to negotiate, and declare
it "not for sale".

~~~
aeternum
A system that allows you to be the broker of your data really seems like the
right way to go.

Similar to app permissions, users could choose which aspects of their
data/profile to share with each company. The data could then be accessed via a
federated API. With this in place, you could make it illegal for companies to
store any PII themselves.

Of course whoever controls that central user repo would have great power.

------
aaron695
So now I'm rewarded with $ for posting more crap people will blindly like?

So my data will now be even less about me?

------
andyshi
How about profit sharing. If you make money by selling my data, I should get a
cut.

------
say_it_as_it_is
It's his right to claim highly valued services for free and then cash
compensation for when he uses them. It is also the right of every sensible
corporation in the world to forward that audacious claim directly into the
trash bin and not entertain it for another moment.

------
bilal4hmed
how much would you pay monthly for Google ?

Im paying for Google Storage, Youtube Premium and would like one fee where I
dont see any ads at all.

~~~
codq
About a year and a half ago, the credit card I was using to pay for YouTube
Premium expired and for about a day, I was subjected to ads on YT—it was
_horrifying_.

Once you go ad-free, it's hard to go back. I'd happily pay for an ad-free
version of every service I use.

Scott Galloway has been suggesting that Twitter move to a subscription model,
with all accounts with less <5000 followers be free, subsidized by a
progressive monthly fee for larger accounts based on number of followers above
5000.

This would serve dual purpose of eliminating a whole heap of bots and fake
accounts, forcing them to be tied to a credit card. With Twitter earning
recurring revenue from whales, along with reducing or eliminating personal
data aggregation for ad-targeting, I can't see a downside.

~~~
121789
I'm curious on how the dynamics would change in that system. Frankly I think
it would make everything quite a bit worse. I think one of the only benefits
of twitter is that it allows organic popularity. Once you add penalties for
getting too popular, people will need to make up that cost. What will happen
is large accounts will start to advertise in their tweets, essentially
defeating the purpose of removing advertising.

Plus, you could then weaponize bots against smaller accounts on a large scale

------
jordache
your individual data is worth nothing alone. When aggregated with great many
others, it then means something.

------
torresjrjr
The fediverse is already here and more or less offered a working solution to
aggregated data abuse. Fediverse instances are mostly crowd-funded, the
software is typically open source, and there are no direct paths to placing
ads, which disincentivises data collection or selling. The only attack vectors
are web scraping, really.

It's just a matter of educating the (boomer and zoomer) public, that "official
companies" with proprietary services aren't the only legitimate platforms, and
that the actual internet isn't 5 websites, but millions of interoperable and
bustling websites and fediverse instances.

[https://fediverse.party/](https://fediverse.party/)

[https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/) (recomended)
[https://pleroma.social/](https://pleroma.social/)
[https://joinpeertube.org/](https://joinpeertube.org/) and many more.

------
m0zg
Instead of the lunatic, "lead balloon" BS like this (or UBI, for that matter),
I'd rather someone worked on requiring US websites to honor "do not track" by
law. Right now there's this idiotic arms race where browser vendors (other
than Google, of course) are baking in more and more anti-tracking, and adtech
companies are piling on more and more sophisticated tracking on the other end.
Because the problem is asymmetrical, tracking always beats anti-tracking.

Ideally, I'd like to have a switch that would just disable tracking on
everything, and if I find out I'm still being tracked, I need to be able to
sue. The whole tracking bullshit will solve itself in no time at all.

And no, GDPR cookie warnings are basically deliberate sabotage of this idea,
because presented with an option with lots of text the user always clicks
"yes".

~~~
oneplane
GDPR doesn't say you have to 'warn' for 'cookies' but that you have to ask
consent for data processing before doing it and you can't deny people if they
don't want that. If you happen to use a cookie to track a user for data
processing then you may pop up a cookie-specific message.

In the end what needs to happen is exactly what GDPR is made for: don't grab
people's data and track them unless they say it is OK to do so.

------
rcMgD2BwE72F
In all countries except Iran, the trade of human organs has been made illegal.
Organ donation is legal, of course, but under strict regulation to ensure that
it's being done ethically for everyone involved.

We had good reasons to prohibit the sale of human parts (even if the donor
consents to getting paid for the transplantation). Now, we have very good
reasons to protect personal data too.

Why not forbid the trade of personal data for the same reasons we banned it
for our physical parts, and implement strong regulations (GDPR 2.0) to make
sure that organizations only access and use our personal data for ethical,
commonly-approved purposes?

------
sub7
This is the kind of bullshit solution that results in class action lawsuits
paying millions of people $5 each (only the lawyers win)

A better idea would be to give each user equity in the company. An even better
idea would be give that equity voting rights.

Side benefit: platforms would have to KYC human beings and we'd kill off a lot
of bots and other generated horseshit.

------
metalgearsolid3
If Facebook's abuse of everyone's personal data was as strikingly abhorrent as
say, organ theft, Andrew Yang would write the policy to give me a $4.56 USD
check while I lay bleeding in a tub of ice.

