I don't mind it so much when it's Facebook because it's clear they have to make money somehow. When it's the phone company that I pay money to, it's more surprising, and it feels like I'm being taken advantage of.
I don't have the same expectation of FB. I don't know anyone who does.
This is a problem with running in mostly technical circles. I don't think your expectations are well aligned with "average citizen".
Today, I suspect the benefit of having said data is probably unknown. This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends.
Showing you a random advertisement vs an advertisement based on the page info vs an advertisement with your data included. I suspect an advertisement based on the page info is 90+% of the value.
That being said, they can't truly pay you meaningful amounts for your data and answer to their shareholders. That's why it's not really done yet.
Plus, they dont' need to in many cases. The whole internet is designed to collect all this data from you, without your consent being necessary.
One of the biggest purchasers of this data is private bounty hunters. It’s definitely useful to them, both in real time and “recent time”.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43z3dn/hundreds-bounty-hu...
> This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends.
I disagree with this data point only because their current profits are being generated because they do not have to pay their data producers. And while I agree with the sentiment that the data is only valuable in aggregate, this doesn't mean my data is worth $0.00. Its still worth pennies, so maybe instead of $20, I earn $5, or less. The point is I'm paid for it. An analogy I had while I was driving over this comment is the equivalent to, say, an orange tree. A single orange is not as valuable as an "aggregate" of oranges.
In the current data economy, companies have maintenance expenses for their "orange harvesters", but not for the oranges themselves. Again, this has often brought up points of "you are using their service, its their data", but I'd say a) this bill clearly shows that some people do not agree with that sentiment, and b) (to continue with the farm analogy) this is where something like share farming [1] would be a usable model.
[1] https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/business-man...
Aafaik, when the data is available on the free market that means anyone can buy it. Anyone includes your favorite three-letter intelligence agencies.
Imagine that. Your personal data without a wiretap or other legal authorization.
No thanks.
2. > Underrepresented groups for a particular analysis could pay more, because those groups' data is rarer. A straight, white, male techie is probably a saturated market, so I wouldn't generate much, but a Hispanic woman's could be more valuable.
Audience size doesn't equate well to cost of data. Buying power is most correlated thing to data cost. In this fantasy, rich white techy males earn more money form their data, and a hispanic woman earns very little.
Edit: typo
Today, no-one is interested in paying the poorest people in the world for their data.
I'm not whether sure I agree or not, but the book was interesting
You'll get like $5 just once. It's valued at nowhere near $20/month.
https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-pays-people-to-access-the...
https://www.cnet.com/news/location-data-from-a-gas-station-a...
Individual users are not going to opt out of anything, even though in aggregate, they state that they want the defaults to change.
If I play fantasy futurologist for a second, it would even make for some interesting economics. Underrepresented groups for a particular analysis could pay more, because those groups' data is rarer. A straight, white, male techie is probably a saturated market, so I wouldn't generate much, but a Hispanic woman's could be more valuable.