Facebook Considered Charging for Access to User Data

I believe the major difference here is that credit bureaus are open about their business models. Can’t say the same about the ways in which Facebook monetizes data.

It's the same in many ways, but that's no defense for facebook, quite the contrary.

edit: it's even the same in that with facebook, opt out is not a realistic way in many cases. even if you go ahead blocking all their servers ( uMatrix! <3 ) you'll find the web broken in many exciting ways.

The problem is market price would be less than a penny per megabyte of data.

EDIT: Okay, I admit I pulled this figure out of my behind but my point is data is incredibly cheap.

I don't think so. I think the more correct way to frame it would be that they are charging for access to the space in a user's feed. Like renting billboard space, except the user data makes it very easy to understand where you should put that billboard.

Yes, but that's just enough obfuscation for them to deny any claim they do charge. But from the free content I was able to see on this WSJ article (not a subscriber) they considered charging businesses in addition to users. Perhaps in the same way they charge for access to user data in France. Where some Facebook users can only see, for example, the first friend photo. The rest of the friend photos then appear behind a paywall. I saw this just last week actually in Indonesia from a tourist trying to show me some photos of his girlfriend back home—only he couldn't because the mobile app his the images of his friends behind a content upgrade.

No, Facebook sells attention of relevant users, which is a product which Facebook uses user data as a tool to craft. That's not the same as selling user data, in the same way that, say, investment houses aren't selling Microsoft Excel.

most of us don't have a track record of making and implementing decisions that

1. expose millions of people to russian propaganda and disinformation 2. expose very sensitive personal data of millions and millions of individuals to dubious actors in violation of company policy (cambridge analytica) 3. hire right wing dirty tricksters to smear opposition as being financed by the evil jew George Soros 4. drag our feet when internal security professionals identify (1)

and that's just off the top of my head. Facebook has a consistent pattern of egregious misbehavior. This article is just another brick in the wall indicating profoundly bad judgement. Only by the grace of god did they not implement such a policy of selling user data.

I'm not in love with the monopoly power of google (I use duck duck go) and they clearly do some dumb shit. like the government approved censorship engine (firefly) but it basically seems like brin and page and schmidt and sundar pinchai are not expressively malevolent and seem to be trying to act in a way that balances shareholder interests with the interests of users. Zuckerberg and Sandernberg still seem to be operating under the mantra of "they trust me; the dumb fucks".

honestly that quote should have been the end of facebook.

The potential reputation hit is harder to justify if you've got robust other income streams.

Most likely they realized it wasn't as profitable when compared to other options.

I don't get this obsession with ethics (in terms of correct motives) from companies. Why does the thought process behind the behavior matter when it comes to a public company, over and above the behavior itself? The fact that the company is responsive to public opinion should the goal.