Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpasc | Hacker News Reader

The media portrayal of the tech world would be more impactful if it weren't so hyperbolic, dramatized, and skewed. There are myriad valid complaints about the tech world, but Facebook paying you for you posting your photos is not one of them.

Facebook is free. Google search is free. 15gb of gmail/google drive is free. You get those free, truly amazing services for nothing because the companies found ways to generate value from the data being gathered. The cost to maintain that infrastructure and provide those great services is pretty high and has taken some brilliant engineers years of sweat. (I don't work for either so I'm not tooting my own horn, just giving credit where I believe credit is due)

I think as it currently stands (collect data on me and I get free 99.99% uptime, cloud available services for email, cloud drive, and social networking) is a pretty sweet deal.

View on HN

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal.

Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways.

And frankly I don't mind the ads, by principle, but I do mind that a few companies are able to use them to track us nearly everywhere online without allowing me to review what they're collecting and who is collecting it.

Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays.

I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation.

It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again.

Many of the incentives are towards fooling people rather than creating useful goods that enrich society with minimal environmental impact and maximum longevity.

It's unsustainable and leads to powerful (ie rich) people who are incentivised to parasitically feed on poorer people.

I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation.

Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.

What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.

I mean on an individual basis.

And I'm skeptical about your assessment that this is merely a problem with "Western Capitalism". This is a problem of any system that doesn't have proper regulations to define the rules of the game in a fair way.

Who puts regulations in place about how many deer it is "fair" for a wolf to kill? And yet, the system has been running for longer than we are around to know about it. It is however when the humans tried to "regulate" the wolf population in Scotland, for example, that the forests were lost due to deer overpopulation. So I would argue that less regulations make the system regulate itself, which it does better than humans can do.

Nature doesn't care whether Scotland has forests or not. Natural events can have catastrophic consequences on the environment. Ice ages and meteor strikes are pretty darn catastrophic. Invasive species were wiping out other species before humans came along (at a much lower rate). Any balance you see in nature will only last until something big enough happens to change it.

Humans have preferences about the environment we live in. When there are things we like and want to preserve, it's up to us to do something about it.

Fair enough. But animals don't have to follow the set of ethics/morals that we seem to value as a species.

I'm not saying that this system wouldn't be more prolific or that regulations would somehow cause it to evolve quicker or something. I'm saying that if we want to to work in a way that we believe is ethical and just, then we need to regulate it otherwise it will carry on in a predatory way.

I'm not restricting the domain because i know it doesn't apply elsewhere, only because I'm not familiar with the nuances of other systems.

Collecting data on us, and showing us ads are not TWO different things.

It's the same thing... If they stop collecting data, they don't still get to keep the same ad revenue.

The ads are only worth the amount there are because of the hyper specific information you can target ads with. If you get rid of that, than the ad model falls apart. They might still be worth...something, but if it was just about anonymous eyeballs, probably every ad would just be for Coke and Coca Cola would pay extremely little for it.

No, they are TWO different things.

Yes, data can be used to improve the effectiveness of advertisements but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. There are also data brokers who are in the business of buying and selling data not specifically for advertisement.

And before the ability to track everything you click on, search for, talk about with friends online there were industries built around advertisement that still offered targeting to some extent.

Ads can target users by classifying different channels/outlets for different purposes. So a website about gardening can offer ads for gardening supplies, etc. All without having to assemble massive databases about us.

There's a difference, don't let the data brokers confuse you.

>For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal.

"fair" is practically a weasel word. It doesn't have a universal standard. It doesn't mean anything until you explain what you consider to be fair. I once read a book on negotiations that called it "the F-word" - it was warning you to be wary of people using the word against you.

Think of this as a transaction between two parties doing business together. When business A is making a deal with business B, then A is not entitled to know how much money B will make out of it. It's perfectly fine to ask, but B not answering is very much within the rules (and is the norm). It is your job to do your own research to figure out how valuable your information is to them.

I also often see an attitude of "They make $20/year from the information I give them. So I should have the option to pay them $20/year for not tracking me." No business deal works that way. Each party sets their own requirements. If you demand that they offer paid services to stop tracking you, they get to say "No - you're welcome to use someone else's service if they give you that kind of a deal"

Finally, the way negotiations work: The focus will not be on what they make from your money, but how much you are willing to pay for the services you receive. The majority of people I know will not pay $10/mo for their email service. So the fact that Google may make $30/year from your use of Gmail is irrelevant. This is your BATNA.

>Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways.

And in how many ways are they paying you in services? Far more, I imagine.

>Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays.

We probably hang out in different crowds, but while government monitoring did make the news, the percentage of people I personally know who cared about it was less than those I know who say "I'm using a service other than the one provided by Google because they're already tracking me in so many ways".

BTW, although I use some Google services, by and large I do not. I do not actively use Gmail. It was very difficult for me to get used to the idea of letting them get to me via Android. I don't use my account on Youtube. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't use Twitter. I pay for my own email and web services. I tend to have privacy extensions on my browser. I don't use Whatsapp. My life is not at all miserable.

You have no way to say if it's a fair deal, because we don't have proper metrics to check. Plus this data collection is instrumental to the increasing centralization of power and wealth that has the potential of getting to a dangerous extreme soon. I think we should act, and I'm proud that the EU is doing just that. Lanier's proposal might be a bit too much, but at least revising the tax scheme for companies that profit from everyone's data is a necessary step, in my opinion, in order to properly redistribute value to society.

And how does the idea that Facebook still collects massive amounts of data on me despite the fact that I don't use their service reconcile with all that? What do I get in exchange for all that data FB has?

They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits. And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits they need larger stronger monopolies to generate those obscene profits.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services.

Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance.

Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

However, advertising is valuable to advertisers because it works to some degree. And it works because people are influenced by it. Now, as an individual I have no control over what other people are doing and so I have no control over how valuable advertising is and how much is being spent on it and how much is being passed on to consumers. Therefore as an individual I look around me and prices are what they are and already have in them advertising costs which will not go up by me using service. Therefore as an individual the marginal cost of me using these services is effectively zero (imagine the ratio between the value of advertising to me and the aggregate value of advertising, that's effectively zero). As an individual those services are free.

So it depends on what your definition of "free" is. A) Would prices be lower if advertising didn't exist? Yes [0]. B) Would prices be lower to me if I didn't use these services? No. The thing is that in definition A) I don't really have a choice, so it's irrelevant. I only have a choice as an individual.

[0] And even here some people will disagree with you. What I call "free market fundamentalists" will argue that No, they wouldn't, because the advertising leads to higher sales and greater operational efficiency, so that advertising costs are exactly offset by lower per-unit costs.

And as long as we as consumers and employees act as individuals and for profit companies act has collectives we will always be at a huge negotiating dis-advantage.

The idea that corporations = people is foolish and obviously leading to a reality that doesn't fit the model.

The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil.

"Oh, yes we harvested your data from all the sites you visited and used it to manipulate you in to buying stuff that harms your livelihood (gambling, say), but it's the _company_ that did it and so none of the controlling executives can be blamed!"

The idea that corporations aren't people means that any blame must rest with the people acting through and in the name of the corporation, and any rights and privileges asserted by those people must be their own individual rights.

Which is pretty much the opposite of the insulating effect of both your description and, more to the point, the status quo corporate form.

Ah, I think we have a communication failure, you're supporting the idea a "corporation is a legal person in itself". "Corporations are people" to me means they are a group, corpus, or body, of multiple individual humans who each should be answerable for their actions.

>The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil.

This seems to, at best, reside outside of practical application.

>The main target of the corporations-are-not-people crowd is the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling striking down limits on independent corporate spending in elections. After that case, groups sprang up to fight corporate personhood. Others rebranded themselves by newly taking aim at it. But they do not limit themselves to attacking the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Most groups make a broader attack on corporations being able to assert any First Amendment speech rights at all; and some have called for disabusing all corporations or businesses of any constitutional right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corp...

Except that has never, ever been the case. Before this trend of just going after the company as a whole came about, they would go after the executives.

I don't believe yours is a valid concern.

> The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil.

Define evil please, because I'm of the opinion that the idea that they are people leads to serious unpleasantness all round.

>part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers //

Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

I just said it wasn't free and we pay extra with a markup. if we just paid for it and had choices we would pay a lot less that's all I'm saying. or some kind of buying club.

> Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

Not sure if your question is rhetorical or what. When you say "who else will pay "my" advertising bill". Who's "you" in this context? Are you a company, and consumer, what?

> But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising.

> As an individual those services are free.

Perhaps those are free to you, personally.

Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.

> > But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers.

> If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising.

> > As an individual those services are free.

> Perhaps those are free to you, personally.

> Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.

So you just repeated my points, but worse. For example, it is not true that the customers are paying for all of the advertising. The way to determine what customers are paying for is to see how the world with advertiising compares with the world without advertising, and there's many possibilities. A) with advertising the company revenues are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (companies pass all cost to consumers), B) with advertising company costs are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (meaning the companies pass all cost to shareholders in the form of lower margins and lower return on equity, or related metric), C) something in between. So it's not true that necessarily customers are paying for all of the advertising.

If we are speaking about a product that I have to pay for or a paid service, then I will end up paying a share of the R&D, maintenance, advertising.

If we are speaking about a service provided at no cost to me and the provider makes money off advertising, then I will end up paying some share of that if and only if my access to said service is charged by a 3rd party, eg a phone company that charges me for traffic, vs my home connection which is a flat rate, regardless if I use it or not.

I think the parent commenter has a pretty straightforward point: the services are "free" in the common sense of the word, meaning you need not directly pay for them. You can reason about abstract value transfer relationships involving the concept of "free", but the core idea is that people are getting something in return for their money, and most people are observably okay with it.

> You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Those companies pay advertising which increase prices plus their tech size profits.

I don't think this is falsifiable. It sounds sort of feasible in the abstract, but how can we empirically measure that effect? As it stands, I could just as easily respond that, no, these companies make prices more efficient, because their advertising methodologies are more effective so companies spend less on their platforms than they would for equivalent ad campaigns elsewhere. Then we'd have to figure out how to investigate whether modern companies advertise more due to growth of the market, or because they have to due to catch up with everyone else using the tech advertising platforms. Narrowing down the answer, if there is one, would be nontrivial. Then I could also say that advertising makes tech services cheaper, because Facebook and Google earn more from user data than they would if they forced everyone to pay $20/month.

Which of us is right? We can't really say, it's effectively an opinion because, even if technically falsifiable, these claims are far from being empirically demonstrable.

Not sure I follow. You assert that a product will be designed to cost FOO, but then they decide to advertise and they increase the price to FOO + x. That's not how it works, the advertising costs are built in the original FOO, being presentations, conferences, regular ads, you name it.

Companies use advertising to increase their sales, either from 0 to something or from something to something more. Along with R&D, production costs, running costs and profit, the advertising cost is part of the planning from the start.

Without advertising, most of these products would be unknown, and thus wouldn't get sold at all.

It's not like advertising didn't exist before the internet so blaming the tech giants solely for it's impact on society seems odd. They didn't create advertising, they simply took away advertising money from other mediums.

Advertising didn't previously involve putting society in a glass bubble of 24/7 surveillance and granular manipulation.

It's not the advertising per say, but the winner take all nature that's inherent in distribution that seems to be the problem.

Advertising before the internet and advertising now are two VERY different beasts.

>And because the stock market machine demands greater and greater profits

This is not how the stock market works. Where did you get this idea?

...would it? IE, would we still be reading it. We keep crying out for better media but private, public, for profit or not... the popular/successful stuff is hyperbolic, dramatized, and skewed. IF we want it even half as bad as we say we do... where's all the calm & collected media? Genuine question, where is it & why isn't it here?

   ^Sorry, way off topic

To the topic... this line of argument feels (I don't have much more to go an than feels) unsatisfying. Sweet or not, it's hard to see this as a deal, in any way but the most abstract. First, users' end of the deal is secretive, complicated and has hard to understand implications. Second, most of the benefits (to users and The Googles) and most of the dangers (to users and maybe society) are a product of aggregation, which complicates the concept of a deal even more.

Also, these things tend to be monopolistic and data is more moat.

The problem is that the ads model works for a while, then they realize it doesn't anymore and they change the free tier. This seemed to have happened recently with gmail. Impossible to know what the eventual monetization model will be when signing up. I think this is the justified cause of the mistrust. Also there are the observations 'free as in beer' and 'if you're not the customer you're the product.' Both of which have merit.

> By other metrics, we are being victimized...

Hyperbolic indeed.

The problem with all these free services is that we are short sighted. We will pay for all in a long term.

This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so.

> You get those free, truly amazing services

lol. Services that exist without an honest portrayal about what they do with the data they gather, or anything like clarity on the extent of what is possible.

Not content with that, they bend the service to better manipulate us not to provide a better service. Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics. How many times have FB been pulled up for being, cough, "less than honest"?

Google, especially, have built a reputation for simply gathering maximum possible data, then shuttering the product 18 months later. There is no reason a company Google's size need close Reader or Picasa or any number of others. Buy their in-home device or use G Drive? Hell no, i don't trust them to provide any availability once the data grab is complete. Sure if the company is entering leaner times you can understand canning some of their services, right now it's no more than a rounding error. So no, I'm in no rush to use any new Google offering - they don't exist long enough.

I think as it currently stands (collect data on me, lie to me, track me around the web as far as technically possible, track me off the service as far as technically possible, track me offline as far as possible, sell retargeting and other dubious tactics to ensure my life is 101% a buying consumer experience with no time off. In return I get a service that doesn't even meet the core need any more thanks to engagement algorithms bending it to meet FB and Google need not users') is a pretty terrifying deal.

Terrifying because we still think it's an honest exchange akin to swapping £1 for a bar of chocolate in a shop, just swap data for service. We still feel it's a fair exchange. Yeah, without honesty of even 10% of what is being done.

I'd actually like the sort of exchange you imply. Give me a great service in exchange for some data. Actually, yes, that seems fair so long as you use it reasonably. Hoovering up everything, with the Hoover turned up to 11, whilst implying "it's just a bit of data" is a confidence trick on the non-technical.

> This is a conversation I have occasionally had with non tech friends. I'm sorry, you are the one being hyperbolic. It's like you haven't even noticed what's been happening the last 10 years or so.

In my opinion, you're mistaking apathy for ignorance. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the exchange is fair. I work in tech, have heard everything you just wrote many times, and my response is continually, "Eh, I'm okay with that." People I've spoken to about this outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care about it. When I mention how extensive the data collection is, they're often surprised, but often they still don't care. The most I've personally seen is a vague discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all.

It gets kind of frustrating for people like myself to hear this argument rehashed over and over in the way you've just presented it, as though people who are okay with their data being used simply "don't understand" or haven't been paying attention. Everything you wrote is - while clearly not neutrally presented - in the zeitgeist on HN. There's nothing really new about it, and you're only convincing the people who already agree with you. Yes, we know our data is being used, we get it. We're picking up what you're putting down. Right there with you. We just don't really care.

You can draw a normative conclusion about me based on that statement if you'd like. It probably sounds callous and asinine from your perspective, but like I said: reasonable people can disagree. Anecdotally speaking, most people I "enlighten" about the data hoovering you describe don't meaningfully change their behavior or preferences. Consider that when people are not aware of how their data is being used, it doesn't always mean they're being victimized; it can also mean they are vaguely aware that their data is "out there", and they implicitly don't care enough about it to investigate further. That's a valid position to take.

> outside of tech often don't know about the data collection to quite the extent you're talking about and don't care

Quite, but some of those very same people who don't care will call it creepy when they are on the receiving end of a retargeting campaign. Of course some don't care, or just find it funny. That's how I've got dragged in to those occasional conversations - typically a friend is spooked at the fact suddenly, somehow, as if by magic, the whole internet has decided they want to see ads for Gibson guitars, everywhere. Maybe they mentioned them in a FB comment a few weeks previously, or visited a review site with tracking etc.

I put it to you that they don't care because they have understood the transaction as one of £1 for a bar of chocolate. I give you some photos and emails in exchange for chat and service. "Who cares if Google/FB/NSA know when I have pizza" and so forth.

What they haven't (and yes, I realise I'm stretching this analogy far beyond breaking point) realised is buying that bar of chocolate results in the shop photocopying all their mail, weighing them, planting a bug to listen in to later conversations and having an employee follow them everywhere for the next few weeks - just in case they express another interest in chocolate.

> discomfort that didn't seem to persist, given the person's behavior didn't change at all.

I think network effect can cover most of that - continue to use Facebook because everyone they know is there, whilst having a vague perception that Facebook doesn't have their interests at heart.

It's still valid for them not to care, of course, but I think a much more honest explanation from the services of the extent they track, and what they can achieve in aggregate, is called for. I think that because people are still surprised by retargeting and similar techniques, and often describe it as creepy. I'm surprised that they're still surprised, to be honest, given how long it's been going on.

So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.

>So clearly there is still some significant dissonance out there.

And not only that, but useds aren't expected to try to quell their dissonance by being more adversarial to these mostly free services (some would say its not even an option because it is just impossible™ for them), and companies are expected to try to coddle to useds desires that they won't try to rectify for themselves by being more adversarial.

I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance.

> And not only that, but useds aren't expected...

> ...try to coddle to useds desires...

> I don't see this ending well for the useds with cognitive dissonance.

Using Stallman-esque terminology like "useds" to refer to people really doesn't encourage anyone to listen to you who doesn't already agree with the point you're making. It's condescending, puerile and snarky to the detriment of discussion. It makes your point seem like the banner of an ideological crusade, not a well reasoned critique.

Consider that calling people "useds" en masse is an extremely poor way to go about convincing them of your perspective. It implicitly puts you above them intellectually and delegitimizes their opinions. If all you want to do is signal your ingroup to other people then using the term "useds" makes sense. But if you actually want people to listen to you who don't already agree, it comes across as tonedeaf.

You could simply use the common word which is not going to distract anyone and literally nothing of value would be lost.

>It implicitly puts you above them intellectually and delegitimizes their opinions

If one's opinion at the end of the day doesn't involve one changing one's behavior to combat the influences of those who use information about/relating to them, then sure one can call it out that I'm delegitimizing their opinion and implicitly putting myself above them intellectually, regardless of whether or not I think that is completely true based on what I have observed of people who are in a state of cognitive dissonance (self admitted or not) and continue to engage intimately with these platforms/services/devices/applications.

Still, it is ultimately up to everyone to change their own behavior in face of their own cognitive dissonance, instead of the usual discussions on here that are infantilizing and void of the reality of the situation, as if we as people have no sense of self agency.

>…If all you want to do is signal your ingroup to other people then using the term "useds" makes sense.…

This is probably closer to the truth.

In actuality, the reason I have been able to work with some of the data I have is because of useds, so in a sense I'm grateful because I get to research things that builds on what we know now (or more selfishly, I can get better personal insight into the behaviors of others around me). So if those who have cognitive dissonance don't want to listen to me, and continue on doing nothing except delegating their responsibility for their choices to others, that's fine, because the way things are now, it will only get better for those who will be able to leverage such.

>Facebook run fun psychological experiments to see if they can manipulate their users - without calling for volunteers first or anything I recognise as ethics.

I've always wondered: How is that different from A/B testing, or any other marketing experiment?

Two things:

- They weren't experimenting or measuring ads, clickthroughs, or pageviews views; they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly

- It was run as a psychological study, and published as a psychological study

they were experimenting on and measuring emotions directly

Every change to an interface can potentially affect the emotions of users, whether or not you try to measure it.

I won't disagree with your statement, but there's a very large difference between intentionally changing a user's mood by modifying their news feed vs. indirectly and unintentionally affecting a users mood via an interface change.

Except in that experiment Facebook was intentionally trying to manipulate users' emotional states.

First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Because I find your emphatic endorsement hard to understand.

To be fair, I do use some of these services, too (carefully). But, that’s only because often I can’t find quality alternatives. For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none.

Since gathering / ad-selling services are so lucrative, they essentially subsidize the development of the highest-quality products in the market. The best engineers work for these companies. They have massive teams of people refining their products. And, these companies use IP laws to prevent clones. Essentially, they lock out for-fee competitors.

Because of this, I’m a strong supporter of consumer protection laws and regulations. Capital often flows toward deceptive and unethical practices. And, all companies are eventually forced to follow the leader, otherwise they disappear. Laws are the only ways to prevent this.

You start by saying the parent comment is hard to understand, then go on to explain why the statements are true. These two statements are essentially the same

>Since gathering / ad-selling services are so lucrative, they essentially subsidize the development of the highest-quality products in the market. The best engineers work for these companies. They have massive teams of people refining their products. And, these companies use IP laws to prevent clones. Essentially, they lock out for-fee competitors.

> You get those free, truly amazing services for nothing because the companies found ways to generate value from the data being gathered. The cost to maintain that infrastructure and provide those great services is pretty high and has taken some brilliant engineers years of sweat.

The only real difference is your use of the phrase "lock-out", but I don't think that's a reasonable way to look at it. If enough people really want to be part of a fee-based ecosystem, no one is stopping a company from engaging those people. You bring up IP laws, but that's really an independent issue, since fee-based and ad-based businesses can both use IP laws in the same way.

I understand what you mean. But, for me to get the same quality of service (without regulation), I’d have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, at least. But, if there were regulations (like, to force service providers to have both a ‘free’ and a for-fee privacy-protected version), I’d probably only have to pay a few dollars.

Try Tiller. It puts all of your data into a Google Sheet with nice premade templates. Not quite as nice UX as mint but pretty close and allows for better customization.

> For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none.

Have you looked at ynab.com? I find their overall philosophy on budgeting to be more effective, the app is high quality, and it's solely about your budget, not about offering you credit cards.

It's one of the few products I recommend to anyone, and it's relatively expensive ($85 for the year I believe).

I have tried it, but I didn’t think it was as useful for me personally. That is, I don’t need a budget. Instead, I need a high-usability, interactive visualization of all of my accounts (12+) with relatively accurate categorizations and alerts. But, I’d like to pay less than $49 / month.

I would try to start a service like this myself, but I don’t think the market is large enough to make it usable.

>First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services?

Of course. No one would be using them if they weren't better off from using them.

The idea that people are perfectly rational actors with perfect information has long since been debunked.

Sure people are rational, even though you as an external actor may not agree with their motives. Even a schizophrenic is rational given what they have to work with.

I'm not sure what perfect information has to do with anything. It's impossible that perfect information could ever exist.

No, they're not. They're people. They do not act perfectly rational.

> They do not act perfectly rational.

I suppose you have your own definition for "perfectly rational" that you're standing by, and that's fine. But I fail to see the point. How is that relevant to this thread?

I originally posted that people wouldn't use these web services if they didn't receive some benefit from it, and you've done nothing more than present red herrings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com