Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

I don't like this whole trend of collecting user data, but at least AT&T offers a way to pay extra to opt-out of targeted advertising, unlike, well, nearly ever other entity on the internet. I'd happily pay $62/month for spyware-free Facebook.

View on HN

Paying someone extra to not do something you don't like is commonly called paying protection money.

Sounds similar to having to pay the phone company to NOT put your phone number in the phone book. I once heard it described as "Corporate Blackmail".

> Sounds similar to having to pay the phone company to NOT put your phone number in the phone book.

Shocking how something coming from AT&T seems a lot like well-established, if unwelcome, practice of "the phone company".

No, protection money is when someone threatens to do something illegal. This is offering a discount in return for viewing targeted ads, which is something, e.g. Amazon does with their Kindle, among many other companies.

This is not offering you a discount in return for your viewing targeted ads, because nothing here actually requires you to view ads in the first place. This is more like saying, "Pay us more and we won't sell your browsing history to whatever company offers us money."

That's BS. First off, AT&T already has a business model! And they're making billions from it, too. It's like Facebook charging you $50 a month, then starting to collect all of your data, too, and then saying "if you want us to stop doing it, then you'd better give us an extra $50 a month".

> I'd happily pay $62/month for spyware-free Facebook.

You'd pay $744 per year to use Facebook? You don't say.

My airline charges me for the flight, then prints out an ad on the boarding pass. I wasn't aware that businesses had to pick one way of monetizing users. I don't like that this has become the way the internet is bankrolled, but all my data is being snooped the minute it leaves AT&T's network, so what do I really care if AT&T gets in the game too?

> And they're making billions from it, too.

I don't find this argument wildly compelling in light of Facebook's 25% profit margin, versus AT&T's 11% margin.

> You'd pay $744 per year to use Facebook? You don't say.

As a 30-something with a kid, I have to admit my primary use of Facebook is sharing pictures of my daughter and my friends' kids. But Facebook benefits from powerful network effects. It's the only site my parents, my wife's parents, and my family in Bangladesh regularly check, and they demand regular baby updates. As a practical matter, I have more ISP choices than social-networking choices.

"Profit margin" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Check your units.

Profit margin is very important in this context, because it's indicative of how much of the money you pay as a customer turns into profit in some shareholder's pocket. If you're using profits as justification for the claim that some company is gouging you, profit margin is a much more relevant metric than total profits. HP is much more profitable than Facebook, but I don't think anyone would argue that they're gouging customers. They sell products at razor-thin margins in an insanely competitive market.

That's BS. First off, AT&T already has a business model! And they're making billions from it, too.

Google already "snoops" on you, FB snoops on you, so why not AT&T for a discount? Google and FB offer "free" services as long as they snoop on everything you do, AT&T offers a discount. Capitalism at its best. Don't like the cheaper snooping offer? Pay more. Or don't choose AT&T.

The average users stands no chance of avoiding Google between the search, Youtube, Analytics, Adsense, Doubleclick, Android etc etc...More or less, 100% of sites have one of those installed. So why shouldn't AT&T make you an offer too? Take it or leave it. Surely Google would still be wildly profitable if they tracked you 30% less and /or if they showed less ads.

I'd say it's pretty naive to think that they won't store the data and sell it at some point anyway. Why wouldn't they? There are little, if any, legal ramifications for them. By paying extra for 'privacy', you're just encouraging the bad behavior to begin with. Talk about social engineering..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com