'How Andrew Yang Would Fix The Internet' (nytimes.com) 100
For the "Privacy Project" newsletter of the New York Times, opinion writer Charlie Warzel interviewed U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Their far-ranging conversation covered everything from whether Facebook should be able to run political ads to his proposed Department of the Attention Economy:
Andrew Yang: I was talking to a researcher recently and she described a concept called data dignity, which I thought really says it all. Right now we're being systematically deprived of our dignity and we think it is fine because we're getting these incredible services. Perhaps that worked in the early stages of the internet. But now we're waking up to the fact that the trade is much more serious and profound than we originally realized... I think we should be getting paid in a data dividend. Every time we post a photo or interact with a social media company we're putting information out there and that information should still be ours...
We've become like rats in a maze where we're constantly hit by messages from these companies know everything about us. They know more about us than our families do. We're responding to stimuli and we think we're making choices. But it's because we've shared so much over time that they have a keen sense of what we want. There's something fundamental at stake here, which is: What does human agency look like? What are our rights as citizens?
Yang also points out that when it comes to making things better, "it's not like individual consumers can band together to make this happen. Government needs to be a counterweight to the massive power and information inequities between us and the technology companies."
Yang also says people would be less desperate to sell their data if they were receiving his proposed Universal Basic Income -- but "if individuals want to share their data or information or even their private lives with other people, then that's their prerogative."
We've become like rats in a maze where we're constantly hit by messages from these companies know everything about us. They know more about us than our families do. We're responding to stimuli and we think we're making choices. But it's because we've shared so much over time that they have a keen sense of what we want. There's something fundamental at stake here, which is: What does human agency look like? What are our rights as citizens?
Yang also points out that when it comes to making things better, "it's not like individual consumers can band together to make this happen. Government needs to be a counterweight to the massive power and information inequities between us and the technology companies."
Yang also says people would be less desperate to sell their data if they were receiving his proposed Universal Basic Income -- but "if individuals want to share their data or information or even their private lives with other people, then that's their prerogative."
User contributed sites... (Score:2, Informative)
YouTube has been paying for monitized videos for years now...
So why can't Facebook pay a few cents per post?
Re: User contributed sites... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: User contributed sites... (Score:2, Insightful)
Web companies like Facebook and Google are providing a service, which is your cut in exchange for your data. You agreed to that in the TOS. If you don't feel that this is a fair deal, then don't use the service. I find Gmail extremely useful, and I have at least a vague idea just how expensive it is to operate that. Anybody who works in IT should have at least a vague idea of how much we get paid relative to most professions. And that's just IT, there's also the developers, and many others.
Re: User contributed sites... (Score:2)
Oh and before somebody yells "But some of us NEED these services!" No, you don't. Personally, I don't use Facebook, I have way better things to do with my time. I occasionally log on to it to contact some people I've never met and that I don't know how to reach otherwise, but it's quite rare and there's nothing particularly useful Facebook can datamine from that, and if they could, I don't care.
The only way I could see somebody needing Facebook is if they had a marketing career or something similar, in whic
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I could see somebody needing Facebook is if they had a marketing career or something similar
What if the union you are in... legally forced to be in... conducts business and makes announcements on facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Please clarify that. Too vague.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not against ad-supported content/services in general, like we used to have in the broadcast/print industry. The physical analogy would be that they'd deliver mail in exchange for putting ad stickers on it instead of paying with stamps. You'd have some broad targeting mechanisms but nothing to really track the individual reader/viewer, whether it was exactly what articles they read, what ads they noticed or anything else about their reading habits.
On the Internet the ads are simply the end result of a ve
Re:User contributed sites... (Score:5, Insightful)
99.99% of content on YouTube is rubbish and probably doesn’t cover the costs associated with storing and serving it, and that’s a much better quality rate than content on Facebook...
What makes a post worth a single cent, let alone multiple?
This is fairly typical of a US politician however - make it all about money. The EU went with a different approach and gave rights back to the individual, without making it about money - why won’t that approach work in the US? If you make it about the money, then the content producer will almost certainly end up covering the full cost of distribution as well (there’s nothing in it for YouTube et al any more to cover those costs) - let’s see how well people accept the cost of a million views of their half hour rant against cherry lipstick...
Derived compensation for contributors? (Score:2)
But YouTube is fundamentally a criminal enterprise, so they are just paying off their accomplices.
I think a more interesting example is the google, where I submit reviews on Google Maps. They keep trying to incentivize me to do more reviews with such notices as how many people have read my reviews or looked at the associated pictures. Turns out if they were paying me 1 penny each time, I would have paid for my costs incurred in writing the reviews.
(As things stand, I'd gladly port all the reviews and images
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to assert. Now substantiate.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy to assert. Now substantiate.
Are you joking? Do you use YouTube?
Assuming you're sincere (which I doubt), why don't you start by picking a few categories of criminal enterprise, then you can visit YouTube (for the very first time in your life?) and see if you are unable to find supporting examples there.
Or maybe it's easier to start with the most flagrant and obvious examples? Maybe you want to explain why copyright is a totally meaningless concept? I actually think copyright law is sick unto death, but I ain't got nuttin' on YouTube in
Re: Derived compensation for contributors? (Score:2)
You can make the exact same claim against the web or even Internet at large with that logic.
YouTube content filters are in place and quite draconian as is. Please do sue YouTube for criminal acts if you are so sure about it.
Why not monetizing privacy? (Score:1)
Because solution to corporations committing crimes against privacy issues is NOT monetization (which actually pays microfractions of a cent to the creator) but regulation of companies selling private data for profit.
If possible by firing squad (CEOs) and flamethrower (offices, homes...) - if not, by incremental bottom line and assets-based fines.
Starting at say... 5% per offense, incrementing at say... 900% per strike.
So that the third strike would require both complete auctioning of all company's assets AN
Re: (Score:2)
Because solution to corporations committing crimes against privacy issues is NOT monetization (which actually pays microfractions of a cent to the creator) but regulation of companies selling private data for profit.
If possible by firing squad (CEOs) and flamethrower (offices, homes...) - if not, by incremental bottom line and assets-based fines.
Starting at say... 5% per offense, incrementing at say... 900% per strike.
So that the third strike would require both complete auctioning of all company's assets AN
Re: (Score:2)
Because advertisers won't pay much for text content. They're much more interested in video ads, which they perceive as being more effective.
Well curated text content can pay users, as we see on Medium. But that money comes from people who sign up for paid premium subscriptions to Medium, not from advertisers.
For a guy who claims to be knowledgable about tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Yang sure hasn’t been paying attention. FreedomPop, NetZero, AOL, MySpace, Tripod, GeoCities (and probably a bunch more I’m forgetting) are a few of the companies that weren’t or haven’t been able to turn eyeballs into profitability.
It is a bit of a fluke that Facebook has managed to profit, where so many other businesses got stuck at the “???” step. More often than not, free services have simply gone belly up once the venture capital ran out.
Furthermore, why would anybody bother running a free service if you’re required to give away most of your profit? I’m already seeing lots of paywalls today - imagine what a future internet will look like when there’s no way to monetize your userbase, besides charging a subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at how badly Twitter still struggles with monetisation...
Re: For a guy who claims to be knowledgable about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geocities and netzero both turned a profit until they were bought by larger companies. It was the mass overvaluation of these companies that caused the crash, keep in mind that the crash happened right at the point where ads went from "huh that might be cool" to "pop-up/under/over/ear-rape" mode.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL, MySpace, Tripod and Geocities were all doing fine at one point. The problem is they fell out of fashion, as Facebook will one day.
Fundamentally the attention economy is a proven business model, at least in the medium term. The only remarkable thing about Facebook is that it has lasted longer than usual.
Re: (Score:2)
The only remarkable thing about Facebook is that it has lasted longer than usual.
They got big enough to buy out most of their competitors/companies that could actually pose a challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, why would anybody bother running a free service if youâ(TM)re required to give away most of your profit?
First, it's not a free service. You're giving them your data. Just because you're not paying cash doesn't mean you're not paying already.
Second, just because there's less profit to be made, it doesn't mean there's no profit to be made.
The key phrase (Score:3)
"Government needs to be a counterweight to the massive power and information inequities between us and the companies."
This has ALWAYS been the base function of government, our collective might... To stand between the little guy and the bullies of the world.
At one time, there were far fewer bullies. In the golden age, it became clear there were a lot more and they got reigned in... And then along came the twisted concept of "meritocracy" and "I can do better on my own" (money for nuttin and...)
I guess we have to relearn the lesson lesson every so often.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand? Governments stand between the people and the government?
Re: The key phrase (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the warmaking powers of the Executive is checked by the Legislative which declares war. Except when it doesn't, dozens of times over the past 60 years, e.g. Iraq War, Electric Boogaloo.
Another example, the Judicial provides a check on the Legislative by protecting individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. Except when it doesn't, consistently over the past 60 years, e.g. Kelo.
Re: The key phrase (Score:2)
Re: The key phrase (Score:3)
This has ALWAYS been the base function of government, our collective might... To stand between the little guy and the bullies of the world.
First, which government? If you're talking about the United States, it has had two. Before these United States were a federation, they were a confederacy, and I'm not taking about the separatist government that came nearly 70 years later. The Articles of Confederation had no such requirement, that responsibility fell primarily upon the individual states.
Second, even under our current federal Constitution, the federal government isn't responsible for protecting you from all bullies, only the foreign ones, an
Re: The key phrase (Score:3)
Bleh, that timeline is off, was actually four score minus seven years later, rather than 70.
How Andrew Yang [anything] (Score:2, Informative)
Spend money other people earned.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the con artist running over a $1 trillion yearly deficit, right?
Re:How Andrew Yang [anything] (Score:4, Informative)
In your zeal to deflect from the facts, you fail to remember one inconvenient fact. Obama had the worst recession in 80 years caused by Republicans to deal with. Tens of millions lost their jobs, millions more lost their homes. The financial industry had to be given over $1 trillion by Bush so they could pay out their bonuses. If that isn't a time for the government to step in and try to stabilize things, you let me know when.
You also failed to remember the deficit declined under Obama and started to rise once the charlatan came into office. Which isn't a surprise considering he's called himself the King of Debt, what with his 14 failed businesses and 6 bankruptcies.
Yet now, in this supposedly "booming" economy, the con artist is running deficits equal to and greater than what Obama ran during a recession.
Finally, as a conservative, I have always been concerned with debt since the time Reagan tripled the national debt. It's why I have no personal debt. But I'm sick of Republicans claiming to be "fiscal conservatives" when all they do is spend, spend, and spend some more, while cutting taxes for the one percent and businesses then lying to us how everything will work out. Trickle down economics has not worked and will never work. It defies basic financial common sense. Look at how well it worked out for Kansas. From a $400 million budget surplus to a $1 billion budget deficit in four years.
So when you're done trying to think you're being smart by calling people names, you explain this: why is it the budget deficit always soars during Republican administrations and we're told it's no big deal, but when a Democratic administration inherits the financial mess left behind by Republicans, suddenly the deficit is a travesty?
Re: (Score:2)
All those people "lost" their homes because banks handed out mortgages like candy and people got in over their heads.
Re: (Score:3)
''Obama had the worst recession in 80 years caused by Republicans to deal with''
You can thank the Clinton's for that. His repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the direct cause and Obama just ''cooked the books'' to the tune of 4 trillion and called it QE.
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank the Clinton's for that. His repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the direct cause and Obama just ''cooked the books'' to the tune of 4 trillion and called it QE.
Look man, democrats don't like to be reminded of that. Or that under Obama he lowered the requirements for stress testing of banks, and also forced the banks to offer loans to people with poor credit standing or lose FDIC backing. Also, they don't like to be reminded that Obama nationalized student loans.
Re:How Andrew Yang [anything] (Score:4, Interesting)
You can thank the Clinton's for that. His repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the direct cause and Obama just ''cooked the books'' to the tune of 4 trillion and called it QE.
You're talking about the Grammâ"Leachâ"Bliley Act, which was introduced by the Republicans. So a Democrat does what the Repubilcans want and it's 100% the Dem's fault? And you know the how many trillions spent in a bunch of wars I'm sure didn't contribute.
The other thing is that just because you can point out that one side isn't perfect does not mean the other side can't also be much, much worse. And when it comes to fiscal conservatism, neither side is perfect but the Republicans have a substantially worse record than the Democrats.
And I'm going to say it again because it's a really fucking stupid fallacy which people use all the time here. If option A has flaws that does NOT imply it muse be equally flawed to option B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Andrew Yang [anything] (Score:4, Interesting)
The Graham Leach Bliley Act enjoyed WIDE bipartisan support. [...] I know, facts are inconvenient to your partisan bickering, but that's the truth.
Yeah facts so inconvenient which is presumably why you chose to misrepresent my post. I said the bill was introduced by the Republicans and it was in both houses. Check wikipedia if you don't believe me. I said *introduced* because I meant *introduced*.
Re: (Score:2)
So a Democrat does what the Repubilcans want and it's 100% the Dem's fault?
That was your lie. A Democrat did what Democrats AND Republicans wanted. Nice try, servi...
Re: (Score:2)
That was your lie.
Right so anything that even slightly triggers you is a lie. This must be a fucking uuuughe lie then.
A Democrat did what Democrats AND Republicans wanted.
Herp derp si teh demarcratz fault!111!!11
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was claimed to be the Democrat fault by the OP that is true.
The Republicans did want it: they introduced the bill and voted nearly unanimously for it.
The OP did claim it was the dems fault. This is clearly not true add it had bipartisan support.
It's not a lot of I post something that triggers you. That's not what the word means. Yes posting blatant lies often makes people angry but you have confused cause and effect. A falsehood makes something a lie, not the fact or triggers you a lot.
The Republicans we
Re: (Score:2)
Grammâ"Leachâ"Bliley Act --
Thanks for the correction, but you understood my point. And, I'm not being partisan in any manner but Clinton signed it into law and it directly facilitated what Obama had to deal with. The separation of bankers, brokers and insurers prevented the kinky creation of CDOs, CDSs and a number of other perfectly legal pseudo valued derivatives.
Under his administration various other rules designed to maintain an orderly market, to prevent a similar failure as we saw in '29 we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which candidate promised to cut spending?
Re: (Score:2)
All of them, I imagine. Doesn't mean they can actually do it, when every aspect of spending is a sacred cow to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spend money other people earned.
Always a popular idea. It's a good way to win an election. Rich people won't vote for you, but they usually vote republican anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Big gov (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
will do what now to the internet?
Leave it a smoking ruin. That is unless they keep a light touch on it's operation.
Steemit / LBRY / what else? (Score:2)
LBRY
You're free to use them if you wish, in fact I'd encourage it.
Now go away and stop proposing ridiculously overreaching regulations like "companies must be forced to pay you for liking tweets" because "this won't ever happen unless the gubberment forces it".
for pictures : IPernity? (Score:2)
For photos (including raws) or actually any document, on almost any license (from CC to just closed), allowing to see but not download if you so wish*, published to all or any subgroup, community-owned not just driven (so zero ad), no blockchain nor dedicated app, at a very affordable cost : http://www.ipernity.com/ [ipernity.com]
At this moment the main issue for them is to handle the crowds coming from the silly 'free-hostings' where you are the product... but they practised the scale-up exercise last year already and it
Too late (Score:2)
"if individuals want to share their data or information or even their private lives with other people, then that's their prerogative."
It is now, dude. Nobody makes anyone post pictures and Facebook posts.
And anyone who claims they don't know their data is being tracked today is the equivalent of saying "oh, I didn't know cigarettes are bad for you!"
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear. We're talking about a series of free choices here.
This bit from TFS is telling:
We've become like rats in a maze where we're constantly hit by messages from these companies know everything about us.
I assume the "hit by messages" is a reference to ads. Do y'all see any ads online? I don't.
Nowadays people get exactly the advertising they choose. It's truly a golden age.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad-blockers are still not universal, and are rare things on mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical problem need technical solutions (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to get paid for my contribution, I want to own my content! Just 15 minutes ago my one and only YouTube video was taken down - an unlisted video of my cousin's memorial service - with no cause given. My guess is that the cell-phone-video-quality rendition of "Amazing Grace" played over a scrappy sound system was just too much of a copyright risk for YouTube to host my content.
I don't want to get paid for distribution of the video - nor do I want someone to host it for free - I want to pay for services, and get quality service in response. No data-mining or quid-pro-quo required.
The solution is to return to the original decentralized internet we started with, and stop handing the keys of control over to a few vertically-integrated monopolies that make everything from operating systems to hardware to movies.
Re: (Score:2)
MobyDisk, I'm a bit ashamed to repeat my posting from just above, but you should try IPernity or a similar hosting, not those 'free' things. Ease of use is the same, both for posting and for accessing afterwards...
Catastrophic for privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck you very much. Someone didn't think this through.
Re: (Score:2)
Yang also wants a government agency to deal with fake news.
Literally a Ministry of Truth.
Hard pass, no. Fortunately his campaign isn't viable.
Interesting? (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:1)
Is the Internet broken?
Yeah, mass media propaganda farms will tell you it is. Too much user input to compete with. They'd rather make it more like Netflix.
Nationalise Facebook (Score:2)
The best solution would be to nationalise Facebook & bring under democratic control & national data protection regulations. Oh, & actually have some effective data protection regulations & actually enforce them, like the EU's GDPR.
I think nationalising FB may also have some effect on adversarial foreign social media PR & advertising campaigns during elections.
It couldn't be any worse than the cesspool of indignity that FB currently is.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than nationalize Facebook (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The full protection of the first amendment doesn't go very far when tax money is being spent on it. The Democrats would demand a ban on anything that could be perhaps interpreted as indirectly promoting violence against a protected class, the Republicans would demand a ban on pornography and define it widely enough to lock people up for ten years if they are caught discussing Game of Thrones, the corporate lobbyists would demand a copyright filtering system more sensitive than even youtube uses, and in the
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to nationalize it, you may as well just shut it down.
Re: (Score:2)
UBI is a LIE (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Frank Yang is an IDIOT.
Who is Frank Yang?
Re: (Score:1)
You can't just "print more".
Yang’s UBI isn’t paid for by printing money (which would make a bad idea into a spectacularly bad idea, for reasons that should be obvious even to people whose only exposure to the concept of inflation comes from the movie Idiocracy).
Yang’s UBI is more akin to a permanent economic stimulus package. Except, instead of getting it back in one lump sum when you do your taxes, you’d receive some each month.
While this shouldn’t result in the same amount of inflation as printing mone
Re: (Score:2)
The really funny part about universal basic income is nobody can ever give a straight answer as to where the money comes from. They either say read this site or watch this video blah blah. Where does all this magical money come from?
Re: (Score:1)
Taxes, gutting every social/entitlement program, and replacing our military with a big sign that says “DONT ATTACK US PLS”.
But hey, $1K to sit on your ass, so it’s all good!
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to reply but you nailed it. Yes exactly and I support it 100%. Only problem is it would never make it past congress and 1k per month is way too ambitious and expensive.
Politically it should be a slam dunk though. Taking from the rich and giving to the jobless poor? Sign me up!
I'm not too worried about getting attacked. Who is going to attack the US mainland? Mexico? Canada? Why would they bother? Low military spending seems to work for European and Asian countries just fine. The country where I
Re: (Score:1)
Only problem is it would never make it past congress
And Yang's smart enough to know this. The whole thing is blatant pandering to the younger demographic who can't find a job due to the retail apocalypse decimating the uh, retail industry.
I'd imagine most Americans who are actually employed aren't really keen on anything that involves more taxes. As it is, most people seem to have trouble understanding the concept of single-payer healthcare (you pay slightly more in taxes, but no longer have to pay for your private insurance), all they hear is "MOAR TAXES!
Re: (Score:2)
For me $1000 is much more than my total income. So it would be great for me personally if it did not crash the economy. If we cut military spending in half it should be enough to cover the extra 300 billion for UBI though without raising taxes. Keep in mind you can also cut out the entire welfare system I guess. In some places it would just replace a difficult to apply and qualify for welfare with an automatic one.
The wealth comes from automation!! (Score:2)
Exactly like today.
Just that nowadays, it all goes to a few assholes and is called "profit" instead of "usury".
If the checkout machine would be owned by the cashier, renting it to the supermarket, nobody would have a problem with automation!
If everything was maximally automated, all the profit was zero, and people only had to pay for what it actually cost to make, they would barely have to work *at all*, to live a wealthy life!
Everybody always gave you a straight answer! You just never want to listen!
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy progressive taxation, usually. Tax those who can afford it. That's the idea - how well it would work in practice is debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
The really funny part about universal basic income is nobody can ever give a straight answer as to where the money comes from. They either say read this site or watch this video blah blah. Where does all this magical money come from?
I've answered this in almost every thread and I'm pretty sure I've answered you before. But maybe not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, I will bookmark my reply for future reference to save on typing.
UBI is not the same as taking the existing system as-is and sim
Re: (Score:2)
That is the entire point of UBI. The rest is just smokescreen.
Naive (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS (Score:2)
"I think we should be getting paid in a data dividend. Every time we post a photo or interact with a social media company we're putting information out there and that information should still be ours..."
That's a great idea if you want to drive a lot of smaller sites right off the map and tilt everything in favor of the big players who can afford to pay for every upload or "interaction".
Here's another idea, Andrew: shut the fuck up with this horsecrap and focus on a real problem, like healthcare or homelessn
Misses The Point!! (Score:2)
That might be a neat idea but it misses the underlying argument that Facebook is essentially a monopoly and can thus set it's price to be the totality of the value of data we give them (or more absent psych hurdle).
.
This is different than the case of Google where, for most of their products (search, maps etc) it really is true that people could switch what service they use in a blink if they could do better. Google still benefits from economies of scAle in providing these services but that's a common probl
Banding together (Score:2)
The "data dividend" idea is patently ludicrous. Better to just stop serving up your personal life to social media outlets. Take all your photos and all your videos offline unless they are fully monetized (e.g. you are a professional making money off it). Also, stop responding to any online advertising. Don't make purchases based on what Amazon is pushing on you today. In fact, just stop responding to advertising period. Buy based on aggregates of reviews and word-of-mouth (which can still be manipulate
The best thing he could do? (Score:1)
Not going to happen... (Score:2)
.. the only thing that would even begin to fix anything would be property rights for software, aka we get to own and repair software outright. Without the ability to own the technology, companies can just steal, confiscate and break human culture like they've been doing to videogames for the last 20 years.
For those of us who remember the good old days of owning complete set of files and local applications on our PC's, at the end of the late 90's game companies began a full scale assault on game ownership o
Pathetically populist. (Score:2)
Let's see if it's bullshit and lies again, just like all the other times /.erd fell for him.
Might aswell call himself Democratic Trump.
hogwash (Score:2)
WHY DON'T WE JUST HACK THE VOTE? (Score:1)
but would yang call an airstrike on preterrorists? (Score:1)
Aren't we already getting 'paid'? (Score:2)
I think we should be getting paid in a data dividend
Isn't that payment already being given in the form of free services?