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?
It would be interesting to get some preliminary guidance on what tech companies would do in response (start charging for premium services? only give premium services to the most valuable users?)
Andrew Yang has also mentioned in prior podcasts on UBI (Freakanomics, etc.) that probably the best way to fund such a program would be proceeds from increased taxation on tech companies.
I for one would love to see cable companies turned into public utilities. But that goal is not mutually exclusive from the goal to give the consumer some more power over the big tech conglomerates.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, opinions my own.
Something where a switch is easier and doesn't cut you off from the old platform would be nice, similar to how domains or phone numbers work: you own your profile and all the data, but you can switch platforms at any time without losing contacts or abilities, keeping the competition between platform-providers alive. I have no idea how that would work out though. Does FB have actually any value besides the fact that everybody you know is there? If you were able to connect with them while they're on FB and you're not, would a lot of people decide to stay in FB because it's such a great platform?
Almost certainly. What people often miss in this discussion is that advertising is progressive--it's a transfer of value from richer people who can and will pay for both the service being used and the product that is being advertised to poorer people who cannot.
The ramifications of creating barriers to advertising is ultimately taking these services away from the poor.
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.
The problem here is that one side of the trade does not fully know the value they provide. When you give $10 for an apple, you know exactly what you give and what you get. When you give $0+"your data"+"your ad view/clicks" for "free Facebook service" it's really really unclear what it is you're giving to Facebook and what it is Facebook is giving you.
The above comment wasn't an example of that, though. His friend was getting medical treatment, the issue is that you can't just buy a kidney (at least not in the US), you need to find a donor.
That isn't just an outright baseless claim, it's wrong by definition. The said person had to go to social media to find a donor, which 100% matches what I descibed, and the fact that some felt this was necessary points to a broken system. It's also terrible to imagine what shady companies can do with targeted ads aimed at vulnerable people who can't find any donors.
What solutions did you have in mind?
I cant think of any other way he could have gotten exposure without having to go on tv, radio, public areas and making his case. That power of facebook ( and other social media is undeniable )
Even Wajahat Ali on CNN, who has such a big audience, found a donor off Twitter. Not everyone has the ability to reach out to Anderson Cooper and ask for help.
For every evil thing Facebook has done, there are stories like this. Having my friend alive, his family seeing him everyday is well worth it.
I think it's more about changing the frame. That Tech companies have been profiting off something you actually have always intrinsically owned, your personal data, and now is the time to retake that ownership.
In other cases the data that users upload to websites is definitely owned by them. e.g. If I take a picture on my phone, and then later upload it to Facebook, the photo is still owned by me. However, for any site that allows users to upload photos, it will be part of the terms of service that the users give the site a license to display the photo.