Hacker News Reader

Yes. But. even regulation needs a framework to think about how to regulate.

And personal data makes an excellent framework, and saying I own data about me is a good way to make the ownership and control relevant, and allows lots of different approaches. It's feasible to imagine most (western) countries agreeing "data about a person or their digital actions" being something that can be put into their laws.

It's hard to imagine everyone agreeing "this regulatory body will oversee data"

The EU was first out the gate, and it's enrolling but heading towards restrictions on all usage then allowances for medical and academic research (you publish, you were allowed) and restrictions on personalised advertising.

It's going to get messy, but I think DuckDuckGo has the right balance - if I search for "trainers for old men" Inwill get adverts for that. But they won't "remember" my search the next time. Honestly I will be amazed if the conversion rates for DuckDuckGo and Google are different enough to justify the suck that is internet advertising today.

I don't disagree, but I think the idea of owning your personal data is a red herring and/or a stalling tactic. The GDPR and its equivalents were a necessary first step, but I dont see how privacy can stop the market abuses and the rentier behaviors of the FAANGs. Privacy is great, claiming your legal rights over your data is great, but at a market/economy level it's probably a net plus for larger companies that can be compliant and/or work around its restrictions.

So, instead of talking endlessly about data ownership and micro-transactions and god knows what else we've been arguing for (checks notes) 30 years, we could just ask to regulate the tech giants. Cap their rentier rates (30% on the app stores? really), their monopoly behaviors (you are both the largest ad server and the auctioneer? really?), etc, etc, etc-freaking-etera.

If you think banning behavioral advertising, reselling demographic data, or whatever, is an easier lift than adapting accounting practices to accommodate every human's right to privacy -- sign me up!

But I'd like to think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Fundamental shifts in the social contract (caused by disruptive technologies) impact all sorts of stuff. We shouldn't limit ourselves to quick fixes.

How would regulating the tech companies result in data ownership?

It won't, nor would the inverse happen, i.e. data ownership won't "take on the tech companies". That's what the TFA argues, that data ownership is the ONLY way to reduce the power of the tech companies. And what I am saying is that a) it's not the only way, in fact there are much better/easier/proven ways, b) that just creating this false dichotomy distracts from the need for regulation and at best delays regulation or at worst it actually benefits the tech monopolies (because large companies can work under/with privacy regulations better than startups).

Not arguing against privacy, at all. But saying that privacy, which is a hard problem to figure out at scale, is the only way to regulate the FAANGS, just distracts and delays. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Agreed.

Not sure why the OP is bringing up both as if they’re related or connected.

I think regulation (as in "PG&E is regulated by some federal agency") is the red herring. Firstly other utilities have by comparison outrageous specific territorial limits, making them clearly subject to one governments regulatory efforts. Facebook has spent years crying out again and agains saying "tell us what the fucking regulations are and we will code them". No one can answer of course because a) we as a society have not worked out what this all means, b) even if we did we would not get all the governments to agree c) even if they did can you imagine one multi-national regulator with powers over facebook, google, apple ? That's the CEO job Inwant

the problem is that digital assets (including data, code, mp3, mp4.... anything digital) can be had (owned) by multiple parties at the same time

and there are no 'frameworks' with which to think about this in a good way that doesn't result in a few having advantage over everybody else. but this is a philosophical and political issue, not a technical one

I think the music industry lawyers have fairly strong ideas over who owns a digital asset :-)

which is why the whole of the 'academic global institution' which in commercial terms is just a big chunk of "big publishing industry" is also in a state of revolution (see the z-lib and sci-hub legal battles: in India, and in Argentina; as well as the "cross-russian border" aspects which are tainted by real hot-open war at this moment)

> You know why? because they are regulated and taxed.

That's not why. It's because they don't have global reach, they don't scale better than anything in history to that customer base, and aren't now one of the primary ways people interact with the world.

It's because they do one thing well, and there isn't loads of innovation happening in them, so they can be state-owned (or very close) and it doesn't matter.

True, but conversely if they don't do their job well, the utilities can kill people. Or if they werent price-regulated, they could charge whatever they wanted, hurting both life and the economy.

I get the trillion-dollar caps; what I don't get is why aren't mere cento-billion market caps enough, why can't we have regulation and lower prices and as-good services with less exploitation of the commons.

What does "enough" mean in this context? A cap is just the total number of shares multiplied by the price of the last-traded share. Do you want to limit the maximum price a share may be sold for? What does that do for anyone?

Power and water are a physical good that you take delivery on. It’s the same substance delivered to everyone. It doesn’t seem like the best analogy.

The meter simply measures how much is delivered to you.

Data conversely is specifically information only about you, and often created by you.

Owning the rights to your data is very different than managing it, or having it used.

It is not impossible to design mechanisms for services to manage your own data and not misuse it.

It’s ok if thinking data ownership isn’t important to you - it doesn’t mean it isn’t important or lacks values if you don’t see value in it.

For example there would be some who are directly and very gainfully employed in using peoples data and might not want people to own their data.

Data ownership isn’t hard, since licensing and drm is possibility for the few and not the many.

> Why not? are they somehow special? more important than power or water?

They are less important than power or water and, which is one of the reasons why they are able to make more profit.

It's becoming harder and harder to arrange for power and water (and jobs to pay for them) without the Internet.

Sure, looking at cat pictures or whatever isn't that important, but as things continue to become online only, your argument becomes less and less valid.

Imagine how you'd move to a new town across the country in 2023: how do you find real estate without the Internet? How do you know who to call to set up power and water, how do you find thier number? Most of the ways i can think of involve someone looking up stuff on the Internet for you...

Half the time when I call any of these places, trying to make use of some drive time, they just tell me to go do ot on the website since the csr can't do it for me anyway.

The only time I've been able to reach a human at the mortgage servicing company is when I switched banks and flu bed the new account number... they were sure to call to let me know the payment failed, but the csr couldn't help me fix that problem, just tale the corrected info for the one payment.

It's utterly absurd to think that something so important to the function of our society is subject to the whims of scumbags at Comcast and att. If the Internet broke for more than a day or two, I'm pretty sure it would be catastrophic at levels similar to the power grid going down for more than a day or two.

> Imagine how you'd move to a new town across the country in 2023: how do you find real estate without the Internet?

Worse yet, is how realtors are NOT equipped to even say "what internet services are available at this place".

Recently, our realtor has been in business, and was stunning on everything other than "what internet providers service this address". She would have to submit a query to the seller.

I showed her the FCC broadband dashboard, which has its own fraudulent data issue (not directly their fault, but their fault for not forcing ISPs who lie to follow through).

We turned down a really nice place that only had DSL that may be reconnected... we couldn't confirm since the Telco was actively spinning down DSLAM circuits in the whole area.

The place we're at now has FTTH and is served by a local ISP, not crapcast (the ones who lied the most in the FCC dashboard).

But again, your point is well made -much of our communication was split between online and seeing houses. About 1/2 each.

The bright side: she listened to my comments about how to determine broadband and is now incorporating that with buyers agent with others. (She told me recently she knows no other realtors who do that locally).

> the power/water utilities don't make insane amounts of profit

They do make insane profits. And mostly all they are doing is acting as a middle man for the consumer to the energy generator - it is an entirely parasitic role adding no meaningful value, when the infrastructure is in place.

They really shouldn't make profit at all - of all things that should be provided at cost to citizens, and special rates charged to businesses, this is it.

> ...nor do we get shares/equity in our water/power consumption...

If you have a local municipal water or power utility, then you effectively do have shares/equity.

(And if your municipality is competent in managing their Water Dept. or Power Dept., you probably have better service than a for-profit private utility would provide. Sadly... municipal governments are frequently allergic to that "competent" stuff.)

> nor do we get shares/equity in our water/power consumption

Well, to be fair, most utility companies are publicly traded, so you could if you want....

And if you have a pension pot from current/prior employment, then the pension pot almost certainly has some utility shares somewhere in it, because the utilities pay reasonably reliable dividends, which is the just sort of thing you need for a pension.

Some places that didn’t sell off their assets give their residents token water or power utility dividends

"Smart" energy meters are being rolled out in many places. Give it a few years until that data is being sold to Google so they can serve you more relevant ads depending on much water you're using.

Regulation and taxes have since become bad words politically, mostly from a concerted effort among conservative media. The lobbyists help as well :). Inertia is keeping older utilities in check, but it should be pointed out that the Business Roundtable lobbyist group specifically requested Trump to deregulate the clean water act (which he signed some executive orders about), so the lobbying efforts & preventing regulation isn't limited to big tech...

Elizabeth Warren & Lindsey Graham recently talked about introducing some regulation around big tech, so do look into who supports or opposes this effort.

THANK you.