2020, and we need to spread this concept more than ever.
To the naysayers, people thought the internet was impossible too. People thought the moon landing was impossible, that electric cars were impossible.
A fatalistic view at the beginning is always fatal, but humans have pulled off some amazing things when we honestly and collectively want to.
I'm the CEO and co-founder of a MID called Readup, a reading platform with a plan to put your reading data to work.
Jaron Lanier, as always, is right on the money. These ideas are just catching on, but they are inevitable. It is a scary, but *fun* time to be alive.
The first video provides an interesting and relatively accurate (but simplistic) view of advertising, but the solution it suggests (videos 2 and 3) doesn't solve the root cause of the problem, which is making money no matter the human cost.
Offering users to make money on the back of their data use is not a solution and doesn't do anything to enforce data protection and privacy rights. And pretending that "poorer people won't be left out" is ludicrous.
Digital advertising is, whether we like it or not, primordial in ensuring a free internet. What we need are ads (and advertisers) that respect privacy and provide an opt-out option for users who don't wish to receive tailored ads, for instance www.youronlinechoices.eu (for the EU).
Mr. Lanier has the right ideas, but he's not an entrepreneur nor a marketing genius. His presentation brings the main issues to the forefront. The solutions to the internet's problems that inevitably come into existence will provide simultaneous evidence of his predicting the future as well has his naivety. Such is to be expected when making early, passionate appeals for disruptive business models - it's complicated!
Tree of Wally provides just such a solution. It realizes much of the main arguments made by Mr. Lanier by creating a global data central bank that provides a new currency 100% backed by data to members. In a new communication tool it's designing (also named Tree of Wally - see www.TreeofWally.com), priced-user-generated-content (ie what's on Patreon), sponsored posts, promotions, and ads may only be purchased in Wallys, the new data-backed currency. Businesses that buy ethical ads accept Wallys as currency. We project average US members will earn $10k/yr or more at scale.
As with the Federal Reserve System, the Tree of Wally Org (www.TreeofWally.org) will be minting currency based on policy. As such, the governance system of Tree of Wally will be crucial in establishing and maintaining its integrity.
What about part 4???
thank you Jaron....I love the idea of this. And your humanity.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's not about your data, Stupid!" It's about hacking command and control of elections, weapons, the electric grid, your water supply, and all the things you take for granted, including your pacemaker, so that you can immediately see online what your high school sweetheart of twenty years ago just said about Trump's latest tweet and made for dinner last night.
From today's F.D.A. URGENT announcement:
"...software to exploit these vulnerabilities is already publicly available. Security researchers have identified 11 vulnerabilities, named "URGENT/11." These vulnerabilities may allow anyone to remotely take control of the medical device and change its function, cause denial of service, or cause information leaks or logical flaws, which may prevent device function."
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/urgent11-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities-widely-used-third-party-software-component-may-introduce?utm_campaign=2019-10-01%20URGENT%2F11%20Cybersecurity%20Vulnerabilities&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
1
Mr. Lanier's data utopia is a pipe dream, and it only shows that he's out of touch with the reality of millions of people who have tried to make money from their hard work and talent. The 'MID' - Mediator of Individual Data - has already been tried. It's called the General Public License (GPL). In principle it works just fine. In practice it doesn't work because every big company destroys each and every little company that tries to make it work. Or destroys the professional life of anyone who tries to earn a living from it. And nobody really cares because the anti-trust laws are no longer enforced. And nobody really cares because the Universities seize the intellectual property rights of every student who takes a class. And nobody really cares because the employment laws are no longer enforced. And nobody really cares because the U.S. Copyright Office only hands out Certificates of Registration to those whose politics they like. And the laws will never be changed because Government no longer works.
The only way that the 'MID' would ever happen is if the Internet...yes, the Internet with a capital 'I'...finally grinds to a halt under the weight of disinformation, intellectual property theft, cyberwarfare, the destruction of civil liberties, and the lack of trust in our electronic systems.
When that happens we can begin again with the data utopia suggested by Mr. Lanier.
13
@W
So, you're saying there's a chance ...
1
@W I agree with you, a MID is tough to wrap my head around. But something is on the horizon...
The dysfunctional central banking policy around the world (ECB, The Fed, BOJ, etc) creates an opportunity for something like a MID (but not a MID).
Tree of Wally is a "global data central bank" and new currency. The biggest obstacle will be technical and behavioral - huge obstacles indeed - but if we get this out of the way, watch out! See http://treeofwally.org/
This is the coolest, most hopeful idea, or set of ideas, I've heard in years. Not so much about the money - although its a genius fix for an enormous metastatic problem in our time - but for its humanity. It puts the individual back in charge of his or her own life.
30
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's not about your data, Stupid!" It's about hacking command and control of elections, weapons, the electric grid, your water supply, and all the things you take for granted so that you can see online what your high school sweetheart of twenty years ago made for dinner last night.
1
I very much agree with the statements and opinions contributed by Mr. Laron. From the fact that we provide our data for next to nothing, to developing a new internet that is not centralized on tech companies that take our precious and valuable data.
Although I like his ideas about the "Middle" brokers who could potentially serve as helpers in this new internet, I think the idea would be very hard to get across to folks across the planet. I in fact believe Blockchain technology companies have already taken a step forward in developing ideas to decentralize the internet, and allow people to own and monetize from their own data. Weather it is articles, videos, or any digital content, there are a vast number of blockchain projects already allowing people to take these steps. While I am aware of many of these projects, I will not name them for the sake of "advertising", but finding them is only a google search away... however, in these corners or fringes of the internet, you tend to find very tech savvy crowds, that understand, and have understood Mr. Laron's ideas of the value of our own private data and the importance of supporting a movement that would change the way things currently function and a hope for what could be: a decentralized internet.
My solution is I don't use it. I have never used Twitter or IG, had I Facebook account for a few weeks years ago and permanently deleted it. I even deleted my YouTube account because it's just too addicting to me. I also don't rely on apps unless I pay for it (NYT, podcasting app etc). To Jaron's point, I feel like we are way past the point of this being a possibility because too many users don't care so long as it's free now. Also, a lot of these services are designed to be addictive to expand their bottom line. Now with that in mind, what makes Jaron think that companies will take a moral stance without consequences? Most of them have so much money that they can just lobby to change the laws in their favor. I think we should really stop using the services as much as possible. Makes these companies obsolete, not allow them to do that to us.
22
@QueenNakia Not being online is not going to happen. But increased privacy can. In fact I suspect that many users would be happy to even pay a wee bit for privacy. There is money in privacy too.
11
@QueenNakia I dare say that throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a real solution. Social media helps keep me in touch with friends from around the world.
4
@QueenNakia - Your data is already out there, regardless of what you use or don't use. Every transaction you make, every step you take into a store and thereafter while in the store, NYT, your podcasting app, your email, your smart TV, your car with all the electronics, the gas station you fill up at, law enforcement, your bank, every hospital or health facility you've visited, your pharmacy, your dental office, just to name some, is tracking you and selling your data. It's been sold a thousand times over, and is also residing in massive hacked data dumps not even opened yet for selling. Your solution is an illusion.
7
Mr. Laron's diagnosis sounds oddly familiar to that being offered by one of the more "unusual" (MSNBC) democratic candidates for president : Andrew Yang. He's the only one who seems to think that we are all entitled to some small share of the massive wealth that's been created through the extraction and refining of our personal data, despite the "free" services we receive in exchange.
54
@SLK - And he gets so little coverage in the press most people have still - still - never heard of him.
1
As we say here in the Bay Area... So Berkeley!
We are humans. We don't produce data. Machines produce data.
We produce content. Content is stories that only humans and God (maybe) can truly experience. Machines will never, ever be able to produce content. Stop calling what we produce "data"; it only serves to dehumanize us. That's what you should tell those students who ask you "why are we here?" Say "To produce content."
This fellow makes sense.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's not about your data, Stupid!" It's about hacking command and control of elections, weapons, the electric grid, your water supply, and all the things you take for granted so that you can see online what your high school sweetheart of twenty years ago made for dinner last night.
1
Thank you, Jason. I've been saying this for some time: data has value, and consumers are being tricked into giving it away for free.
Possible solution(s)?
First of all, people need to be presented with a choice. It should be clear that by using a website or service that you are consenting to have your data collected and sold.
Secondly, businesses that collect and sell your data should be legally required to keep track of who they sell it to and how much money they get in return and that info should be available upon your request.
Consumers should have the ability opt out of data collection, in which case a company could charge for their service.
So if you wanted to use a search engine online, you might pay a monthly fee to use one that does not collect your data. Or you might consent to have your data collected on the condition that you receive a dividend on the company's profits. The point there needs to be an informed choice.
If it seems far-fetched that this could ever happen, ask yourself: suppose consumers went on strike and refused to log on to Facebook and Google and Twitter for a day, a few days, a week …? Consumers have clout in this situation.
This sounds good. But wont it transform us into paid advertisers, with no recourse about the privacy of our data since we would be getting paid for it?
Hope for the internet? NONE !
It's not about your data. It's about hacking command and control of elections, weapons, the electric grid, your water supply, and all the things you take for granted so you can see what your high school sweetheart made for dinner last night.
1
I had a career which brought me in Europe for 11 years, Africa for 6 and Asia for 6. I can get in touch with all our friends without participating to the broad personal data capture by staying out of Facebook, Twitter and Co. Email is still the best way of communication among all others, except phone where it is available.
My OS and browser are, along with third party applications configure in a way that nobody can access my computer and never ever had a glitch (trojan, virus etc) since 2001 when theses applications were not as they are today.
People tend to think that all those are essential to their life ?
With cloud computing, we entered into a "very cloudy" era as far as privacy, among several other concerns are all about. I will not have time to see all the long term consequences and that is all right with me.
1
Just before Netscape opened the internet to easy and compelling public access, I had the idea for the internet run as a type of co-op, where the users were also owners. 30 years later, Lanier is talking about owning your data, which is a close relative to the co-op model. Perhaps it was pie-in-the-sky when I first wrote about it, but now that we've seen results of the wild west hyper-capitalist model, it's time to rethink the whole process. As he always does, Lanier gives some important perspective and ideas about how to proceed.
This is an enlightented path. I have read articles on Edge.com and they seem to share similar viewpoints. When I recently saw a ,fortunately, non fatal accident between a car and a bicycle and noticed the flock of people taking Instagram or facebook pics I thought this may be going too far.
Let's see what info might be available to firms as a result of my internet use. I'm politically liberal, probably a Democrat, older fellow, could be retired, could be on SS and Medicare, doesn't travel much, interested in financial matters, doesn't play stupid Facebook kid games or online games, might play chess, might be more of a fan of rock music than country music, probably likes baseball more than football, has some international friends (what could that mean?), might like Caribbean resorts more than snowy ski lodges... How much is any of this worth? Not enough to buy your kids a popsickle, not if internet advertising doesn't result in any sales, not if it just makes me adjust my spam filter to keep your online blurbs out of view.
1
I love the thunderbolt gestures but unfortunately the average person feels disempowered and is too busy chatting on Facebook and texting friends to worry about data dignity. Privacy is dead.
Before cable, TV was free. In the beginning, internet content was free. Both are now pay as you go. The chances of the internet paying us is as remote as cable TV doing the same.
1
All that's needed is honesty, a tiny bit of altruism, and the will to do it. All three will be tough sells in today's me-first society.
2
This is a wonderful vision, movingly articulated. Fortunately and unfortunately, it does a good job of explaining just how exploitative the current system is. Laniers idea of MIDs do seem like a solution worth working towards. With that said, they're the solution of the future. The solution of the present--available right now--is to stop, stop, STOP, giving your data to companies like Facebook.
We all know on some level that social networks waste our time and provide a flimsy, even damaging substitute for friends and family. We all know they're terrible for politics, economic freedom, and vibrant cultural expression. There are a million and one reasons. Just delete your account.
How does this not lead to a world where we do nothing but sit on the internet trying to earn more money for our usage? Why was that question not asked?
I am glad to hear that Mr. Lanier is talking to high school students. I hope he is talking to more than just the "elite" ones. One of the reasons that an idea like data dignity has a hard time getting traction is that the people in charge right now—the adults—do not understand the internet or how data is used. Like climate science, technology ethics, history, and science should be taught extensively in schools. And—this part is important—there need to be laws regarding the use of personal data. Regulate me, or I will keep stealing it, Silicon Valley seems to be crying out. Then regulate it because apparently, the human race is not, on an industrial scale in a capitalist society self-regulating; and because the internet's focus on people's worst selves and fears is destroying the world. Our survival depends upon a change happening.
I think there's a big disconnect between the problem and Lanier's proposed solution. 4chan is one of the worst websites, and it doesn't do any sort of data tracking or targeted advertising--in fact, every user is completely anonymous.
A world in which everyone is encouraged to act like an influencer sounds like a dystopia too. People will absolutely game the system for cash, generating all sorts of insincere content that would maximize gains from MIDs. And the people who wish to live more private life would end up feeling like they are missing out on an income stream that everyone else is cashing in on. Maybe I should read the full thesis to understand how this kind of behavior would be discouraged in the proposed system. Jaron is a deep thinker and an incredible polymath so I'm sure he's given it some thought.
I'm going to try to keep an open mind about this - though the implementation of the solution may not be apparent right way, I believe in the possibility of change. Just because the path there isn't clear, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We just don't see it yet.
Brilliant Solutions to a real problem that he points out as an evil hype ad machine that hypes anything and everything which includes a sizeable amount of negative content that is bringing our society down. I have been reading Mr Lanier's solutions for years - now that mass media like the NYTimes is listening and allowing him to share his ideas - maybe in another 20-30 years the masses will put enough pressure on our government to make this MID economy happen. Will probably coincide with the loss of millions of jobs via AI and the introduction of other new income solutions for the millions of unemployed like Universal Basic Income. Mr Yang (running fro prez) also has great ideas all mapped out in his book - War on Normal People. The top 1% will finally have to redistribute the wealth made of the blood,sweat and tears of the middle class.or else chaos will ensue and nobody wants that.
Once again Lanier is ahead of his time... his idea is simple in principle, but complex in execution as long as content providers remain addicted to ad dollars. Perhaps if the NYT weren't so hypocritical on the matter of data collection, they could take the lead in this regard, and we could put this into action a bit sooner.
My browser's built-in ad blocker counts 11 cross-site trackers on the NYT website in addition to the creepy insistence on blocking Incognito mode. Let me pay-per-article or raise my subscription fee, but don't deal in my data while serving up a vision of a better future you refuse to participate in!
1
I'm actually glad I will 'decease' before this is all sorted out, if, indeed, it ever is.
The internet is the Armageddon of human relations. It's just that most people don't realize that, while commercialists dive in, as is their wont, to make of it what they can.
Why do homo sapiens so often appear so sub-human, so animalistic?
1
Dear Zuck, you have all my details, please deposit my commission for all the money you've made off my data. Thanks!
1
Companies have tried to pay users for their clicks.
They went bankrupt.
And, the automated possibilities for cick fraud will guarantee this again.
3
Let's have Jaron Lanier as Secretary of Data in the Warren administration.
1
Wait a minute...if we get paid for our Data...it'll be great until...we have to keep track of our Data Income...for...Federal and State..Income Taxes! Darn it...inside every silver lining...there's a Dark Cloud !! Maybe instead of cash we could take points towards purchases !!!
1
The author fails to realize (or acknowledge) that information, and by extension the internet, isn't free. People are not willing to pay for information outright. Even this fine newspaper needs to charge for advertising on top of subscriptions to make a profit.
This is way vague. And yet anything to halt AI (will it) I am interested in. I prefer Sacred Economics Eisenstein) where gifting is how we survive. And Lanier has important points. So do I have to BUY the Harvard Review article? I am interested no just data dignity but stopping AI.
I would rather not be a self-terminating society. THIS proposal also implies we all are able to broker our info. Have Lanier review this video:
https://charleseisenstein.org/podcasts/new-and-ancient-story-podcast/daniel-schmactenberger-self-terminating-civilization-e34/
This is an absolutely brilliant idea/solution and it really could work if there is political will. I would happily pay for more content (I already am paying to get some content I like ad-free) if I were also paid for my data. Passive income for ordinary folks who might really need it also resonates with me.
Jaron, just let us know how we can help and support this effort.
Here's a slight bit of hope.
AT&T is putting fiber into the Bay Area that will beat the pants off of Comcast's coaxial stuff. So sign up now -- until you read AT&T's misnamed "Privacy Policy" which gives the company the right to collect data about the subscriber for its own advertising targeting, to combine it with data it buys from outside information brokers, and to sell the data they have on you to others.
Turns out that there's another company that's also offering Fast Fiber to the Home: Sonic.net. What they are doing is reselling AT&T's Fiber Service, but with a twist -- no data collection.
The difference in price: $30/month -- or $360/year is the price of the panoptic ISP closing its eyes.
1
This mini-series is a true relief from the endless apocalyptical narrative of data exploitation. We constantly hear of big tech abusing our personal data but rarely hear about transformative solutions--only financial punishments that resemble
the parental procrastination of removing a week's allowance for misbehavior.
Yet, despite the fact that I find Mr Lanier's solution truly promising, I am left with questions. If individuals are paid for their data, wouldn't that incentivize them to dramatically expend their social media usage?
If this assumption is true, I believe that Data Dignity would kill social media as we know it. If all of your friends suddenly post fifteen meaningless pictures a day, less and less people will use these platforms.
Additionally, supposing that financial gain increases usage, what about the psychological and sociological concerns that have emerged out of the social media revolution?
I guess that it is hard to go into a lot of detail in a fifteen minute video but I don't see how it could work without taking into account financial incentive.
I was left deeply moved and excited by this.
But in a world where our leaders can't even pass legislation to protect simple election data, who is up to the task of conceiving and executing a plan of this magnitude?
It seems we need the internet version of a Manhattan Project. Here's hoping we elect a visionary leader who can bring this remarkable man in to spearhead it.
27
@Lynn Anderson rather than politicians spearheading this, it would make sense for corporations do lead the way. Economic mechanisms move much more fluidly than legislation... and the information gap between legislators and the Internet is arguably insurmountable atm.
2
@Lynn Anderson
Exactly. It is up to us. Vote.
2
@James
"It would make sense for corporations to lead the way"....isn't that a wee bit like the foxes guarding the hen house?
My simple solution to all this is to tax the living heck out of the corporations and plow the money back into America--particularly education and housing--so we stop our descent into becoming a third world country. I think our simple-minded legislators are capable of doing at least that much if tech is so far beyond their comprehension.
2
I would like to see Lanier use a darker example than the new baby one he shares and push the potential future problems of this approach so all risk has been thought through as far as possible.
How about a single parent who needs a loan and is looking for a job? Vulnerable people needing to sell their data has to be explored as well. And what do they get in return? Cash but also profiled and potentially mis-sold services or preyed upon. I've read of examples where loan companies post fake job adverts and then use the applicant's data to approach the applicant and persuade them to take a loan. So the digital dignity approach is on the right track, but Lanier's suggestions only provide a partial solution.
3
(1/2) Jaron Lanier knows that these ideas aren't new -- Firefly, a startup out of Patti Maes's group and even Ted Nelson, pushed them decades ago.
The problem is that our society has been incrementally addicted to the OxyContin of surveillance economics over the past 70 years.
It's modern version began in the 50s with the introduction of credit cards (ie. Diner's Club), credit agencies, and data analytics (i.e., FairIsaac). They surely had the benefit of expanding consumer credit. And the downsides enabling every more sophisticated mortgage redlining.
The rise of the Web, however, really kicked things into high gear by making the production and capture of data at scale possible. The advertising technology built on that data, superficially just an extension of existing market practices however, inevitably led to something not different in scale, but in kind. Mutilating society in the process.
2
@Eben (2/3)
Lanier's re-heated proposal concedes the legitimacy of information brokerage. It aspires to reallocate the "value" generated by its Tom Sawyerism. That's the flaw -- in his proposal and in the many like Firefly's of decades past.
Information cannot be unambiguously bound to its source. Radioactive tracers cannot be inserted into the data being collected.
If permitted by law to be collected, the game is already over.
Moreover, now that our economy is fully addicted to the money generated, there is no political will to unwind it. To stop the collection in the first place. Google, Facebook and thousands of other companies are full-fledged addicts have no realistic way to get off of the smack. (Maybe Zuckerberg does by stiffing all of the other shareholders, running the company as a utility at vastly lower cost and ambitions).
Sorry for snark: as an observer of Jaron since Stanford, I know that he knows all of this. He does have good intentions, but, as should be apparent, he also has a deep need for attention and a talent for self-promotion.
1
@Eben (3/3)
Here's the bottom line:
25 years ago, imagine going to a public library, where the librarian's primary job, isn't to help you find the books you want, but to walk around with you keeping notes on the books you browsed, the pages you read, the annotations you made. And then he's report to a central agency, who'd sell what he learned to anyone interested. And even though, he omitted your name in his report, the buyers were smart enough (and had enough other information) to figure out who you were.
You'd, of course, be insane to go into that library.
In fact, it would have been easy to enact legislation to outlaw it. Recall the law put into place when a Republican congressman's video rental history was released including the porn titles.
But, of course, today, you do go into the library, everyday, all day. Sure, you can theoretically opt-out. But that would mean opting out of life, too.
The pity is, before the big Internet platforms got addicted to the OxyContin of surveillance, they could have built profitable businesses on the old-fashioned notion of supplying you with something of value and you paying for it.
Jaron's acceptance of the underlying assumption of a market and transactions for personal information don't challenge this idea, property rights are technically unenforceable without draconian legislation that seems less than unlikely in a country whose ethos is that privacy is a luxury good, so expensive that even Jeff Bezos couldn't buy.
2
Thank you, Jaron Lanier! You are a prophet and we should listen.
1
I like being anonymous on the internet. To get paid, would I need to reveal myself? I'd rather not.
5
@David Anderson Not necessarily, but your identity would have to be known to the Mid of your choice. Once you understand how this new system would work, you will prefer your identity be known, but secured as well.
1
@David Anderson Furthermore, and I say this not just to you but everyone who has the illusion that what they alone do is what matters, it's not just about you. We have to live in a zen balance of knowing that what you do matters a lot AND what you do alone does not matter. Honestly, I think this consciousness is the big leap we have to make. So, while you can decide not to be on the Internet, it is there. And while it is there, harvesting your neighbors' data, it is affecting your life. So, in other words, you still need to care, even if you cannot move beyond self-interest.
1
@David Anderson
You only think you're anonymous. Unless you're spoofing your IP address - separately with every comment - there are many ways that websites track your fingerprints. This "anonymity" you believe you have only effects your behavior when you're on line. Feeling anonymous emboldens people to behave in ways they wouldn't if they thought their employer, friends, spouses, etc were watching.
That said, I believe the anonymity you feel is not helpful to society. Being in a public forum, which is what the internet is, requires that participants have a sense of public and civic address.
There are many circumstances that require true anonymity. Those to speak truth to power may fear for their livelihoods: whistle blowers, minorities, criminals in some cases, etc.
1
While this argument is at first intriguing, my ultimate conclusion is that monetizing data will only only encourage a tech overdosed culture to overdose even more. I click more, I get more money. There will be no end to staring at glowing screens (as if we aren't there already). How about paying people to take a walk in a park?
3
@KarenE
My thoughts exactly. How do you prevent people from doing nothing but clicking 18-20 hours a day????
You don't get paid to watch television and all the commercials that come with it, in fact YOU pay for that privilege. Why do you expect the internet to be any different?
1
@Jon But couldn't we turn this around and ask why shouldn't we be paid for watching TV? We give the shows and commercials our time and attention, two precious things, and yes, we're entertained (maybe). Could we think about a world where they owe us something in return?
@Jon Netflix model not cable. Young people don't want to pay for commercials.
Sounds brilliant to me. This guy has the kind of meta-view of the world that can make a revolution. And a humanist one, at that.
2
The liquid that is drawn from us is life blood, here called data.Vampires trade our data without our knowledge. The internet's users should be anonymous and protected, like the shareholders of these same corporations, but IP addresses give us away. Sueing these vampires that have stolen data from us without our knowledge, by a major class action, should be the option. Delete it all or pay us big time.
2
In the Trumpwellian world in which we live, I don't see that any of this matters.
So we sell our data to them via binding contract, so we lose control over our data. Then, capitalism for them, socialism for the rest of us. How cute.
This is what I wonder about my trash when I throw it away each Thursday morning. Trash in my area is used in an incinerator to generate our electricity. I am also paying an electric bill with no discount from my contribution to the fuel. My town makes money from selling our recyclables. I am fine with that deal because presumably it keeps my property taxes lower. But they don't get compensated for our trash. If we were shipping it off to a landfill, that would be one thing, but it is being turned into fuel!
1
There is a bottom-feeding data company called Pitchbook. It is the worst of the data mining companies I've seen because their misinformation can have huge financial repercussions.. They "curate" financial data on startup companies and sell their data sets to investors and others.
When they emailed me to sell me their product, I told them that their information on my company is wrong, and that there could be significant financial repercussions for incorrect data as we begin fundraising again next year. They literally had the nerve to tell me to follow a link to fix their misinformation - as if I work for them!
When I demanded they delist my company and cease using my trademark and IP, they said "It is not our policy to delist companies. We use info that is publicly available".
Stay tuned, because I am suing these clowns on multiple fronts and will be publicizing this behavior all over the place.
3
I am a big fan of Jaron Lanier! I'm disappointed I missed his last talk in NY. I hope to catch him next time.
Why is tracking and personal data collection even legal to begin with?
Data is important and Surveillance Capitalism will only allow for a loss of privacy freedom and dignity.
But to clean up the cesspool the internet has become we need more:
1. Get rid of the idea that anonymous speech is free speech. You are not anonymous to the government, big tech or advertisers. ( 33 trackers are being blocked as I write this) The only benefit of anonymity is to trolls.
2. Make Big Tech responsible for what is posted on their platforms. The idea, and law, that they are mere 'bulletin boards' is nonsense. Even owners of real life bulletin boards are responsible if they allow criminals and libelist to use their platforms.
Every time I look at radar on my phone, a pop-up asks if the weather service can have access to my photos and my contacts on my phone. I always tap deny. Why in the world does the weather need my contacts and photos? By golly, if they want stuff, they should pay.
2
Berners-Lee is already working on this: https://solid.inrupt.com/
JL's fundamental problem:
he can't think outside the 'profit (from this, from that, from whatever) bubble'.
Sure, it's how capitalism operates.
But isn't it time for a new model, JL?
With your long locks, you might be expected to think outside the bubble, beyond the assumptions some accept, others reject.
Where is your creativity?
Today I was about to pay for an online subscription to my local newspaper. The subscription included the caveat that I would be contacted by whoever my information went to. I was, in effect, paying for a service and paying the service owners to own my data in a transaction that would be instantaneous. If I wanted to block further contacts, then I would need to call (yes, call and wait for customer service) and wait the many weeks it would take to cancel a transaction that takes seconds on the receiving end. WHY? Needless to say I did not subscribe to the newspaper.
4
First of all, this whole thing is yet another rationalization for the abdication of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in the whole "what happens to my data" thing.
Why should people get paid for posting their baby pictures to the internet? It is their CHOICE to do that. They could just as easily send the pictures to friends and relatives by regular mail. The thing is that using the internet provides both SPEED and CONVENIENCE, two things that have value in and of themselves. Should people be able to obtain that speed and convenience for free? Should the business that provides them with speed and convenience lose money for providing the service (by paying them)? I think not.
As for the instance where the friend decides to buy the baby carrier, that is her choice also. She could just as easily buy it in a local brick and mortar store and drive over to her friends' to deliver the gift, but there is that SPEED and CONVENIENCE thing again. Should the business that sells her the carrier, giftwraps it and delivers it with a card to the new parents (thus saving the buyer time and trouble) be forced to reimburse the buyer and receive little to no compensation at all for the services rendered? It makes no sense.
There are 169.5 million adults on Facebook in the US. If each one of them was paid $20,000 per year for their data, the ANNUAL cost would be a bankrupting $3.39 Trillion/year.
This is a hair-brained (pun intended) scheme that would end the internet as we know it.
@Elizabeth Moore Except, we're not always given a choice. When my dad applied for Medicare and Social Security back in the 1980's, he wasn't barraged with emails for walk-in bathtubs, wrinkle creams, senior dating sites, and a hundred other products companies think senior citizens need. I turn 65 and suddenly my email is flooded, and still flooded, with crap aimed at seniors.
Somebody clearly sold and spread my data around and the only organization that knew I was turning 65 was the government.
3
@Elizabeth Moore The point he is making is that our data has value, and it is more valuable than the services and conveniences we are getting in return. Why do you think these companies are so profitable? No, of course paying every user $20K is not realistic – that is not the point. When you use these services you are not the customer, you are the product, and what you do online can be mined, monetized and used for purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with baby pictures or gifts – things like manipulating how you vote by custom-tailoring the information you receive, and making changes to your insurance premiums based on your online habits that—thanks to billions of data points provided by people just like you—can be used to fairly reliably predict your future. There's far, far more to this than you realize.
2
This is nothing new- I have tried over the last 15 years to interest developers and investors in creating a clearing house of personal data that would be controlled and auctioned by the owners.
There are many hurdles to overcome but it should be possible at some point.
4
If we want to open a basic app, we must give blanket permission to access our photos, files and contacts. Can this be real? Can it ever be rescinded?
8
Yes! I trust you, Jaron. I just wish to know HOW. and I want this to be continued and work with you on it!
3
Andrew Yang includes data as a property right in his platform! This will allow people to decide what they want to their own data. Data is now more valuable than oil. We need leaders who are going to move the country forward into the future, not to some partially imagined past.
I would encourage people to visit Yang's website yang2020.com and look through his list of over 150 policies.
12
Brilliant! Our user behavior data is far too valuable to give away! This article got me excited about the future. How can I be of help? I am just finishing up my PhD in information science and technology. I am eager to think about these issues and make it happen!
9
I am confident that Elizabeth Warren can create a plan for this and shepherd it into law.
7
Jaron Lanier's "solution" is useless because it's doesn't address several key points. First, we as members of society must decide who owns our data. The Europeans (rightly, in my mind) have decide that each of us owns our data, and that we give permission to someone else only for a specific purpose. Not so in the US. Second, MIDs or any other marketplace solution still allows a marketplace for data -- which encourages some entities to place more data out there, not less. And third, following on from the second point, there will always be ways to game the system, either to increase "earnings" on data or to increase exposure as the same data item is sold over and over again to generate revenue.
We as users are complicit in this data marketplace. We enable the advertising-driven business model by buying and using technology that requires us to give up our rights to our data. For example, think about setting up an Android phone. It's stunning how many functions require that you create a Google account (and thereby give up control of data) in order to do almost anything. You can't even download a privacy-preserving Firefox app without first setting up a Google account.
So how did we get here? Because we bought the argument that if we have done nothing we're ashamed of, then privacy doesn't matter. But of course it does matter, especially when tracking is not at all visible, and decisions are being made about us or for us without our knowledge.
7
This is an interesting discussion on an idea that is not new. The concerns/solutions posed don't go deep enough. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Are companies willing to go along with this idea? Yes, as we see with GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California, tech companies are seeing the flow of their much-needed resource dwindling. They are interested in paying for data.
The question some of us are struggling with is, how do you quantify the value of the data? Single sale with limits on reselling, one-time fee? This labor union concept does not ensure consumers are fairly compensated.
How do we ensure that low-income persons are not targeted for the sale of information? It is not sufficient to say we built libraries, so we can figure this out. We do a disservice by allowing for it without setting up guard rails to protect consumers.
6
All of this assumes a production path of creepy surveillance. That production path precludes the possibility of human autonomy because once a measurement is taken, our accountable to it is inescapable. Mr Lanier is too protective of the initial intrusion, which is where legislative interventions should focus.
6
Ok - but I can easily see a scenario where one person's data becomes more valuable than another's. Then what? Where is the equity in Mr. Lanier's plan? Where is the oversight? It just seems . . . unrealistic. And rife for exploitation.
The image of the liquid coming out of the body suggests that we are supplying the internet with something of an entirely different order than it could ever give back to us, and that monetizing that life-giving liquid is fundamentally problematic, morally, ethically. We give something priceless, it gives us a space to share baby photos. Something is wrong with this picture! And it is hard to see how a few dollars here and there in return for that life-giving liquid is going to change the equation. Inequality in terms of knowledge and access is baked into the internet. The tech giants treat us like nobodies, while pretending we are all in it together and they are doing us and humanity a big favor. The marketing ploys are breathtaking. I don't know how it can be fixed, except to say that the internet should be free and no one should be allowed to make money off of it. Ha.
7
Very important ideas that can be easily overlooked! Great visual works to emphasize the dystopian world we are advancing towards.
On the topic of data dignitiy, while there are privacy concerns to this idea, but would an open source approach to this fix the problem too? Rather than just the big tech companies making money off of user data. If that data was available to everyone, it solves the transparency problem while leveling the playing field for everyone.
To a certain extent, GDPR in Europe tried to tackle this problem by requiring tech companies to tell users what data they have on the user, and defaulting many data collection methods to "off".
Also, a small irony in the NYT comment section is that it requires social media login, or creating new user account and providing basic data to NYT!
3
Interesting ideas. But how about letting users choose between paid access with no data harvesting and "free" access in return for allowing data harvesting? Some of us luddites think that our data are our property and don't want it collected, whether or not it is compensated through MIDS. It was a big mistake for content providers to offer "free" content in the early years of the internet. People didn't expect to get free newspapers or magazines when they were on paper. Why should providers have led them to think that digital content would be free in the first place? Having gotten to this point of data vampirism, providers could bring this under control by instituting the above choices for access to their content.
3
Brilliant! Finally this idea has reached the mainstream media. A few of us have been thinking this for years, but not to level that this video proposes, which is even better. The inevitable naysayers will only hurt themselves and everyone else from the opportunity of some basic financial freedom by selling what is, and should forever be, their own information. Residuals for life, for your family and their families. This is what true freedom means. Right now, we are just pawns and a very few people are making trillions on our backs by using our personal information.
Only when people's data begins to hurt them, and they can see that is hurts them, will this ever change. However most people are too ignorant of the dangers to care, or even try to care because it's over their heads. What if a doctor told you that the surgery you were going to have was unnecessary because you were going to experience another problem in 12 months from something else - and that they got that information from data; but not necessarily even your data, just data in general, and statistics? Think that notion isn't here yet? Then you're lucky, so far. For you, ignorance is truly bliss. What about that job you didn't get after five interviews? Ever really think why? Your data can be manipulated, taken out of context, and it can harm you in the wrong hands, so at least get some reward for it.
2
@James Devlin
This "Brilliant" idea is just an affirmation of the old saying about people "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing."
This underlines the tragedy of American Capitalism where everything, even our most personal details are for sale.
Your privacy, like your sexuality, is precious and unique to you.
Selling your privacy, like selling your sexuality, imposes a much higher price than just the money involved.
The questions shouldn't be who gets the money and how much, but rather the phsychic and societal costs of the sale.
Fantastic!
Brilliant!
Important!!!!
1
I am data, therefore I am.....
3
Oh good lord. These ideas have been around for decades. (see FlyFly out of the MIT Media Lab ca 1997). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_%28website%29)
None of them can happen without regulation.
And our country's ethos, devoted to selling and buying, reflected in Jaron Lanier's solution, is the foundational problem.
3
Doesn't using a VPN force a false computer identification and location when I go on a shopping spree so my information other than payment and shipping info is not reliably usable?
1
@L. W. browser cookies which get dropped onto your devices by almost every website you visit and persist across browsing sessions help put together the narrative of who you are - much more than knowing your IP address ever could. Your IP address is the only thing you mask when you use a VPN.
cookies and session data - this is where companies get to know your preferences and can put together a profile of you.
1
I'm in a contrarian mood. So let's say the person in the example wasn't on Facebook, and didn't get prompted by an ad to buy their friends, the parents of the newborn, a cute baby sling branded from their shared alma mater. But the guy would have bought "something." Everyone wants to give their friends a gift to celebrate the birth of a baby. So the argument here is "it's fundamentally unfair that the advertiser got to this guy before a random store in the mall he happened to go to?" Really? In life we have to say "no" to all sorts of temptations of over-consumption of every kind. You can actually say "no" to this click ad. Maybe I'm missing something here. No one paid me to watch ads on TV or anywhere else. Why would I pay people to advertise to me now? Hm, pondering. I still have free choice on what I consume, which seems to be the argument here.
2
@lh
i see your point. from what i understand here is that this advertiser used information posted by user without his/her permission. this information they converted into data, the algorithm used the data to understand how to use that data so that only relevant (or sell-able) advertisement is shown. the company which uses this algorithm to understand the data makes money from this data. the company which advertised and sold the product was able to make money. however, the data generators - say in this case the couple or friend who liked the picture- they didn't get paid. their data was used and stored for future reference but they are not paid for that use. i think that is the case here that we should be get paid for our data.
2
@lh What I meant at the end was "why would I get paid for people to advertize to me now?" Correction
@lh Respectfully, you’re missing a LOT. You don't really have free choice when you're being subtly, gradually manipulated by algorithms that determine the content you are exposed to and influence the things you believe and do, and it goes far beyond what you decide to buy – it includes things like who you vote for. That’s why this is such an important topic. That’s why companies like Google and Facebook are so rich. When you use these services you’re not the consumer, you’re the product and you (i.e., your data) is being sold to end-users who want to use it for all kinds of exploitative, profitable ends (many of which haven’t even been thought of yet).
1
Yes ... we must acquiesce to our obsolescence, or we'll be denied even the right to delude ourselves as to our intrinsic human value. What a choice. The only dignified action, the only action that supposes and affirms our dignity, is to opt out of this economy. Maybe no one, as it is, can entirely opt out, but this solution would make it impossible for anyone to do that; it would force each of us to entirely buy in. JL's point about AI requiring this data is well made, but the solution imo is to reject it, for that reason, where possible.
3
@Ryan Wholeheartedly agree. To be able to opt out and participate in a robust alternate economy which trades in other commodities would have to be exist in any truly just system.
There are thousands maybe even millions of people who care about data dignity. But there are hundreds of millions of people who don't have a clue or just don't care. Just like the adage I hear from people about security. "I have nothing to hide so I'm not worried about "them" spying on me." No one, especially billion dollar tech, wants to give up a single dollar. Keep up the good fight.
68
@Stan I feel like an incentive program for participating for say, 6 months and seeing what your dividend would be, then having the option to pay for the service and collect that past and future dividend would certainly win over a portion of that population.
This is the first I am hearing about Data Dignity and I'm really excited about it! But again...to be protected by law. There in lies a trickier piece of the puzzle. Keeping these ideas in mind. #2020
2
This would work. It is practical. Only when a $ value is applied to data will it be accounted for. Doesn't matter whether I get $20,000 or $2,000, it will be tracked, measured, secured... Data will count for me. right now it only counts for the advertiser.
Brilliant,
3
@Robert J Dunn
So Amazon, Google and Facebook give money to people willing to share data useful to advertises. The companies charge more for the advertising and the retailers raise the prices on their products. The media companies also have a big tax write off and pay less taxes. The poor must pay higher taxes and higher prices so it is all a sham to restrict competition for the benefit of existing social media.
1
Thank you for these high quality episodes! It was eye opening but yet inspiring. Data dignity decentralizes the power of data and restores a sense of autonomy to the individual. This model may work well with other technologies (blockchain, cryptocurrencies, to name a few). I only hope we will have political voices that support this direction in the face of big tech.
If you want to protect your privacy and data and not care about selling it to others then wouldn't a VPN be effective?
1
Zoom in on those little yellow dots: they're not gold coins, they're pennies. And what did the parents of that newborn give up? Something that was never theirs to give - the personal privacy of their infant child. The estimate that a small family will make $20,000/year, dubious at best, only indicates the private profits to be made off of personal, private information of *babies*, with a kickback to their parents. By the time the child gets control of their own information it will be too late, the data sold or stolen for ill use.
But wait, our data will be swaddled and protected in the arms of an analogue to that scion of virtue, the private insurance company! Oh did you also say it's like a labor union? Please. These will be the new Silicon Valley unicorns, middle men to make yet more money off of your private data, controlled by VC funds and shareholders, *not* the people who's data they buy and sell. NYT journos should investigate who's lobbying for laws like this; they have more to gain than the individuals they will be "helping."
The better answer: stop the collection of personal data of children, period; use personal information of adults only for the purpose it was initially collected and prohibit charging a fee to exercise one's data rights. Of course, there is one problem with the alternative: it does not allow obscene profits off of mostly harmful products. It does not open a vein for easy money.
Data rights are like human rights; they should be inalienable.
13
Thought provoking. Impactful. Merci.
Thank you! Finally a name has been put to that subtle nagging feeling that we are being taken advantage of by the apps we use. We need to protect people's economic rights to prevent the class divide between the mega-rich and the poor that is already emerging today. So grateful this problem is coming into the fore.
You can have the internet or you can retain a measure of privacy.
You cannot have both.
2
@A. Stanton wrong. listen to the video again.
It's call privacy, control and regulation.
1
This feels like the most important thing I've seen all year.
It feels like hope.
Now, NYT and Jaron Lanier, what do *we* do? How can we get involved?
5
Jaron Lanier: great. But: I need to READ, SILENTLY. Please NYTimes, provide transcripts, always. And another thing: videos are too slow, I can read much faster.
7
@99Percent:
Videos can explain much more than words.
For example, the image of the woman's blood draining from the back of her neck is visceral -- it shows how VALUABLE our Data IS, even though we simply give it for free to tech companies.
Such strong ideas can't be expressed in a transcript/text.
2
@IN
In my opinion, that video content is both superfluous and manipulative.
The written word and numerical data provide a reviewable, excerptable, unambiguous record in ways that audiovisual media can't approach, in terms of both convenience and ability to assess the data without ambiguity (or, to an increasing extent, fakery.) The exception being simple still images like graphs and charts, which contextualize raw data findings in various ways.
If a transcript of Lanier's talk existed, I could copy-quote specific observations from it- in a way that requires no one to move off of the page, to run some clip- and then offer comments or questions on specific points. Audiovisual does not offer that opportunity for interaction. It isn't an inherently reflective medium, the way text is. Visual media in particular are more easily manipulated to elicit reflexive responses from the audience than reflective ones.
3
@99Percent
good points.
I happen to like Lanier's narrative style. But that's irrelevant to the fact that watching any video distracts from subject content more than reading. I like podcasts, audio...in the car. I can supply the entertainment angles for considering an idea on my own; what I'm after is new/useful/inspiring information. Quickly. Text is the fastest. Video is slower (as is audio.) Much slower. Not competitive.
I don't confuse reading text with skimming it. But with topics I'm up on, I do often skim texts to search for information that's particularly important to me. Text has a fast-forwarding/reverse/effortless hi-fi copy capability that video can't begin to match, for that.
It's simply not possible for me to fast-forward through video clip on first viewing and home in on that nugget of information that I find to be new or especially worthwhile. Viewing the whole thing through is a requirement. In fact, because video isn't reviewable at a glance, the info might get past me anyway.
But I can skim long passages of words- hundreds at a time- in three minutes, just by process of elimination based on my priorities, the reverse-engineered axiom of journalism (w/w/w/w &h), and keyword searching with my eyes. And then do it again a little later, to pick up what I might have missed the first time. Then I might find myself reading the material in its entirety at some point. And referring back to it with the ability to quote that source material verbatim. Etc.
1
It needs to have teeth, though: costs per infraction, requirements ahead of time to detail likely infractions BEFORE they happen, NO IMMUNITY for megacorps who allow the data to be breached (or NOT-A-BREACHed as C'Analytica) without sufficient protection (a strong free-software firewall, encryption on disk, minimal data presence in RAM...), and prison time.
Less a symbolic coupon-action lawsuit, and more a GDPR.
3
A true patriot. Thank you!
2
Great piece to bring this important topic to a broader audience!
And the future is closer than you might think...
bitsabout.me is a Swiss startup that lets users control and monetize their personal data from all kinds of sources (Google, Facebook, Amazon and many others).
The model is based on the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that made users the rightfull owners of their personal data 16 months ago. Soon Californians will enjoy similar rights with CCPA.
We got new rights now we need new products. Jaron Larnier's vision is being worked on as we speak... ;)
2
Possibly the most important article published in the NYT this year if not this millennium
2
Keep it simple. Avoid social media. Use an ad blocker. Remember that you are always being monitored and act accordingly. Teach yourself to filter out the media that provokes your fears and hatred. (For example: Don't read "speculative" or claim-based materials, especially on the internet. If the heading contains a question mark or words like "should, could, may or might... pass it up -- even on the NYT.) Teach others to be informed, especially your children.
1
I think instituting a common currency system for micropayments is a necessary pre-condition for any system like the one being proposed- as well as for other purposes, such as providing a means for directly funding the content provided by contributors on their blogs and web pages. I'd really like to have a legal tender personal micropayment account capable of paying out in 1/10 cent increments, that I can recharge in the same way that I keep road toll money in my E-Z Pass account. So the content provider independent non-subscription site can require a 1/10 cent payment (or a 1 cent payment, etc. )for page access, or 15 minutes of access to the site content, or what have you. Direct payment to the provider, not dependent on clicking some third-party ad sidebar, or purchasing the good or service being advertised.
We aren't there yet.
I'm an info-gourmand, and somewhat of a glutton with my web surfing on the Internet. Sometimes it becomes a waste of time. Speaking personally, the widespread adoption of a payment system would motivate more self-discipline in my habits. I haven't calculated how much money I'd have to budget in order to maintain my current rate of "free" access, but I think I'd end up paring down most of the superflous stuff if it became a budget expense. (Also: social networks? I've never even considered using one for an news/info feed. It's an open invitation to bring ensnared by the SNAFU Principle, and I put a lot of effort into steering clear of that trap.)
1
@DC Reade
Seriously. Isn't it sort of weird that there's a world of micropayments that Spotify and Youtube and Google Ads can use, ultimately calculated from single page views- but there's no way for a content provider to directly charge $0.01, or 1/10 of $0.01, simply for clicking once on their page, with more time and pages available for more mills, or for $.01, or $0.05?
We need legal tender micropayment capability, as individuals. Because while I don't have $30 to give to every website that I find particularly valuable, if I can click on 100-1000 webpages a day for $1.00, I can keep a balance in a micropayment account sufficient to land on 1000 pages a month- for $10/month. (Or even more!) Meanwhile, a website that gets 100,000 1st time@30 days page hits per month can make $100 (more like <$99, after the probably inevitable fees to business accounts.)
Yes, it's an entrance fee at the gate, set by the proprietor. That does not violate net neutrality any more than a paywall put up by a newspaper. But then, if newspapers began charging like this, they might not need to charge high rates for subscriptions.
I like Patreon; I may use it myself one day. But on reading about how it was founded, I came upon this anecdote about the experience that the founder had with Youtube: their music clip got 1 million hits; they earned about $150. If everyone who watched their clip had directly paid a micropayment of $0.01 for each viewing, they would have made around $10,000.
3
@DC Reade - Now that's something I might buy an Alexa for: Alexa: click on every page on the internet for the next 10 hours. I can hear the coins clinging into my bank account.
A “dignified data economy?” Mr. Lanier just wants us to sell our souls the way we sell our labor. Our identity (our desires, our freedom, our knowledge, our opinions) will be given to us by to our overlords, but we won’t starve. Treating data and information as commodities is incompatible with individual freedom of thought and action; it’s as simple, and as alarming, as that.
2
@Martin I'm sorry I'm seeing your comment so many days later. Mr. Lanier is telling you that your identity has already been bought and sold, he's offering you a way to at least make a commission on your own data. Interesting concept that was first put forward by Ted Nelson and Xanadu.
@dbmarin
And why would receiving money in exchange for my freedom be better, rather than worse? It would only institutionalize the theft & manipulation, and make people (or at least non-rich people) dependent on it
Agree with him or not, Jaron Lanier is the best forward, digital thinker and futurist we have.
4
@GD
He may or may not be "the best," what he IS is the one we KNOW ABOUT.
As Tim O'Reilly said well over a decade ago, "Obscurity is the enemy."
The Internet is where great ideas go to die.
@GD Hear, hear. Personally I'm not sure this plan would fly but I am very glad Lanier is discussing solutions. He is one of the rare tech minds that is also deeply humane.
@GD I agree, he's brilliant, innovative, and a deep and visionary thinker. It's great to hear from him in mass media like the NYT. The thing about him that is most compelling and a reason I think we should all listen to him a lot more is that he is not just technically brilliant in his own field with a wide-ranging intellect but also, as @peremesd says, deeply humane.
Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, is widely reported to have said “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.”
Following Willie’s logic, my advice to everyday people looking to make a good score in the day of the internet is to get it by increasing taxes on rich people.
1
Anything can be a resource. This is a bit different from oil as a resource. We have strict rules about how we allow oil to be drilled. There are no rules as yet about the resource data has become. I have bristled at the unlimited mining of data from my own person. I think I should be made aware of the ramifications of this resource rape. I should be able to opt out or be paid for it like any other resource. Something of value is being taken daily from individuals and it happened due to a lack of understanding about the nature of the new resource. Fbook can take data and they give us a platform in return? This "Deal" stinks. Some recognition of the complexities of this resource is sorely needed. Basically to me, I feel raped by these data miners. Make them pay us for all this data they ALREADY COLLECTED. I figure Zuckerberg owes everyone on Fbook several thousand dollars at a minimum. Fbook is a failed experiment in benign social engineering derailed by capitalism and greed. Time for action on this.
1
Thank you to the NYT for doing this project with Mr. Lanier.
However, the fact that I pay every month for a NYT digital subscription yet the NYT *still* undoubtedly collects and sells my data (the Google ads that occasionally show up is a big tip-off) tells me that the ideas he proposes would be fought tooth and nail by the media, technology and retail industries, including the New York Times.
10
I Hope. Therefore, I am.
Privacy Badger detected eight trackers on this page when I loaded it. uBlock detected 20 requests. Disconnect blocked 2 advertising and 11 content requests. Oh, the irony.
41
@GinNYC
Exactly.
Jaron Lanier promotes money for the masses and government control over artificial intelligence and social media. I suspect he also expects consulting fees from Facebook, Amazon and Google.
One unintended consequence of Data Dignity (a lifetime monopoly in all data representing your ideas, movements, preferences, images and public choices) amounts to permanent dominance by the few social media companies that can afford to directly share advertising revenue. Rather than fairly taxing the profits of businesses that advertise, Lanier wants to reduce their taxes with a big write off paid primarily to big consumers. The scheme is just a little more sophisticated than cash back credit cards and the non-bank payments now being exploited by Apple. Data for the poorer half of the country is worth relatively little to retail advertisers and cash back expands the wealth gap by giving the haves a little more.
The larger danger rests with the proposed Mediators of Individual Data (MIDs) that would serve as middlemen and clearinghouses in storing and transferring different types of magnetic ink. Wealth is less important in voting, insured health care, and government surveillance. Artificial intelligence can scan some types of data to predict political leanings, risk of harm via firearms, intelligence, religion, ethnic identity, and criminal propensities. Should this data be available only to the highest bidders?
As for me, I enjoy time saving predictive ads and 3% back on my purchase.
2
Lanier's idea represents capitalism at it's finest. We would be wise to pay attention.
1
Data is more valuable than oil.
Andrew Yang (2020 candidate) wants to tax the use of this data and return that to all Americans regardless of income level as a UBI.
4
@Bill:
Andrew Yang's proposal is not the same. He wants the government to "own" all of our data, and in return we get ONLY a thousand dollars a year. That's not good, since our data will be owned forever and can be used against us (for example our DNA data).
Lanier's idea is much more egalitarian - fair to us!
1
A brilliant mind. But the bottom line is it is still about money. For now I buy almost nothing on the internet and sometimes click like on things I hate. It is the people's right to not have their data sold. Why are corporations allowed to own your data when we as individuals do not even have that right? A simple question. Start by overturning Citizens United ruling for one small step.
6
I heard Jaron speak at Carnegie Mellon when I was a grad student there about 18 years ago. It was right after 9/11 and what he said was profound and I'm a huge admirer of his work. He's truly a brilliant thinker.
This is such an interesting take on what is happening with social media and technology. I applaud his ideas on how to fix this and redirect our energies on building a better internet future. However, I don't think we are the country that is able to take this on right now. We are too focused on the individual, treat Silicon Valley too favorably (almost God-like really), and too fearful and paranoid (sadly even more so after 9/11.) I would look to the EU or some other country to take this on and lead the charge on this.
2
Something missed the mark here. I favor data transparency and control - human's should rightfully conceal or share personal information without sacrificing access to basic communication tools. But I dislike the idea of personal compensation for ... liking photos? Following certain influencers? Sharing certain photos? Companies create the means to collect that information, and therefore should be properly compensated for their research, development and iteration.
I think this story missed the mark by ignoring the tech market oligopoly. Power lies within five board rooms that have effortlessly avoided competition for years. I blame the lack of data transparency and control on undue knowledge gaps between those companies and our government who learned THIS YEAR that Facebook and Google are rich for selling ads.
Market differentiation could solve some of our world's data issues. Imagine if people had the choice to use internet browser A that automatically detected and blocked all ads for $45/mo., internet browser B who blocked 50% of ads for $15/mo. and internet browser C who blocked no ads but remained free. & in this competitive world all browsers would be influenced to enhance their products by offering transparency and control over their data, if that is what the people demanded in their products.
2
Excellent concept Mr. Lanier. But how do we get from here to there? There are obstacles, political and economic, to moving to the system you propose. Please make implementation your next focus.
8
@EdBx
"But how do we get from here to there?
We cannot.
Excellent thinking from an Excellent Thinker.
I read/watch/write this using a browser that right now allows me to own my data and pays me for my browsing.
It called "Brave".
Combined with some blockers and using the right search tools, it is already possible to get a toe-hold on what Mr. Lanier is advocating.
I Own My Data. I control my data. I get paid for my eyeballs looking at content. I also have (and this is important) the built-in ability to pay the creators who make the content I enjoy and benefit from.
Been using Brave for over a year now. It's a great browser. It asks if I want to see ads and then I get paid for looking at them.
Braves pays BAT (Basic Attention Tokens) that have a cash value.
Brave has a BAT wallet.There's over US$35 in my Brave wallet right now.
Brave also incorporates Meta Mask wallet for other tokens.
I do not work for Brave. I have no investments in the company.
Brave is not the only browser in the space. Check out Puma and Opera for other approaches. GDPR is also a step in the right direction.
Jaron is right.
Time for a major paradigm shift.
I am no longer the product.
14
SO important to start thinking about this now. The part that really got me was the students' comment about their worth and why they were in school. The disconnect they feel is starting to be palpable--I know b/c I'm in the secondary education field.
6
1. How would direct payment to people prevent the incentive of humans to eventually mimic the negative behaviors of the algorithms you criticize? If the algorithm elevates negative human tendencies, wouldn't people do the same? This could lead to an even worse version of social influencer culture?
2. I would also point out that people using these social services do receive value in return: free communication services. Many people in the comments are pointing out these benefits. This is tangible value. Advertising supports free use of these services.
I'm not saying big tech is blameless for a myriad of issues, but I'm not sure the solution being proposed here is a surefire success. I would argue for more transparency in how algorithms are constructed and optimized, so we can mitigate these negative human tendencies.
2
Fascinating perspective on what's happening with the rise of the information age. We need more such perspectives from people like computer scientists. But we need much more input on what the future holds from AI experts, psychologists, physicists and philosophers to name a few. To be a futurist with predictive power and not astrological pseudo-skills means to be part of a group each of whom bring a certain expertise to the discussion.
2
Interesting idea, but it seems to me that paying people for their data would merely create a dangerous positive feedback loop. The more one uses the services, the more data one gives up and the more money one makes--and on and on... Seems to me this would lead to an infinite upwards spiral--not good for the individual or for society.
In this context, for me, mr trout's and DC Reade's speculation on the jump from carbon to silicon-based intelligence just took away the glow of the much-heralded "singularity" on the horizon. Perhaps transferring our consciousness and human proclivities to silicon would doom us to a super-efficient, everlasting and self-amplifying loop in orbit around the big aggregators of data and the MIDs.
3
Jaron has pointed out the problem brilliantly, but his solution is too complicated. He actually compares his "MIDs" to health insurance companies! It's the obamacare solution to data theft (create a complicated "market," which could potentially lower profit margins for the bad actors, but ultimately keeps the business model the same).
There's a much easier grass roots solution. Adblock everything until they come up with a new business model. Done.
19
@Frank Ironically, I first learned about AdBlock from a column written by David Pogue when he was the tech guru at this newspaper.
1
@Frank BTW, that includes the New York Times. On this very page, you're being surveilled by:
amazon.com
google.com
contextual.media.net
a.et.nytimes.com/track
doubleclick.net
optimizely.com
The NY Times chooses to include these trackers on their site. They can easily exclude them.
14
@Frank A free program called CCleaner can be used to remove trackers.
Whether we get paid with free stuff, or whether we are paid with money and then pay for the stuff we used to get for free, the result is still rampant materialism. The solution is not to "fix the Internet" or stop using the Internet. The answer is to drop the materialism and impose a bit of self-discipline.
I love tech. I have no problem with what Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, etcetera do. I spent lots of time on computers, but I live along spiritual lines and reject materialism.
My free time is my free time. I don't waste it on Twitter or Facebook browsing useless junk. I don't buy goods I don't need. I don't expect others to solve my problems. I clean up my act on the Internet, at the grocery store, and in my consumption of plastic and carbon. I vote for candidates who I hope share at least some of my values.
I'm human, so I don't do any of these things perfectly, but at least I'm not so deluded that I expect Lanier, or Google, or my minister to solve these problems for me. Will my solution fix all the worlds problems? No, but I make my part of the world better which is a real benefit to me and others.
8
I've been waiting for someone to articulate this in this way...very true. I like that solutions are being presented.
If my data is my most valuable asset I'm not leading a terribly rich life. Integrity, family, career, friends, health, IRA are a little higher on the balance sheet.
3
@Charlie Respectfully, you're not grasping the significance of this problem and how it's affecting every aspect of our lives. Data manipulation via the internet is not just about buying stuff; it poses a threat to the survival of our hard-won democracy.
8
@Charlie:
Your point is that your data is not valuable.
That's "Criticism #1" that Jaron described.
Perhaps you did not understand.
Trillions are earned currently, from a billion users.
That is $1000s per user per year.
Perhaps you're right -- YOUR data is not valuable.
But ours are.
2
I appreciate this piece because it shows that there are people thinking creatively about our future. Many of the comments I read stop at "never going to work" and "this is not a complete solution". Most ideas need polishing. Keep an open, if critical mind. Data protection and data dignity are important and deserve our best efforts. Lets keep working .
8
Jaron Lanier’s response to the student’s question concerning the value of human life is interesting. He repeatedly asserts that it is but can give no reason why. It’s an absolute presupposition that cannot be proven but must be assumed: “Human life might seem absurd, and all the evidence seems to indicate this is so. Nevertheless, I admonish you to see its value.” This in fact is a religious statement that must be believed rather than proved. At the end Lanier admonishes the audience to believe. He sounds like a preacher which at the end he has become.
2
@JamesEric
Artificial intelligence is built, in this case, to process human data. Without humans, there is no data. AI has no intrinsic value.
human data --> AI --> $$
Subtract the humans:
(nothing) --> AI --> $0
That WE cannot see the value in humans because they are vanishingly small *as individuals*, is a flaw in human thinking.
Without input, AI grinds to a halt. It doesn't create value *by itself.* That is how the sausage is made. It's not religion, it's math.
OK, so let's say that I get paid for my data. That makes things a little less unjust. It doesn't mean that my data still won't get used in ways I don't want it to be. I'd rather have my data not be collected to begin with.
36
@Stephen Merritt, Then don't sell your data (don't give companies the right to use your data, for which they must pay you)! The more murky aspect is what prevents companies 'from using your data against you,' after you have sold it to them.
That part Mr. Lanier doesn't about speak in depth here. He's gone into that before, I believe, when talking about Facebook's malfeasance regarding active manipulation. That is: active manipulation of the user by algorithms that have been constructed by studying his habits (data).
Example: I can make this sales pitch so much more effective if I include boilerplate that appeals to his political beliefs.
Mr. Lanier touches upon this when he discusses data dignity, in video #3. He says "Because any company that uses your own data against you will cost money, any company that wants to will be dissuaded from doing that." I assume he's saying that the cost of using your data against you will exceed any incremental revenue that might generate. But that's my assumption, he doesn't make that mechanism clear.
2
@Stephen Merritt Totally agree, but I do think Lanier touches on a solution in that he envisions MIDs as collective bargaining orgs. Powerful MIDs could, in theory, not only demand compensation for data, but also partially dictate how that data is used.
Digital Soylent Green is people data!
One's personal privacy data, or the lack thereof, is the new fossil fuel. It contaminates everyone's rights while benefiting a tiny few to the tune of billions and billions - and like fossil fuel barons, they will never let it go. Just as we have limited choices but to refuel our cars, we are given little choice but to expose ourselves buck-nak'd to these intruders for profit.
Every so called newer, faster gadget or PC, with additional terabytes of whatchamacallit, gazillion CPU cores, GigaHz neurochips, GPS, beacons, always on cameras and mics, they are all there merely there to run more sophisticated data acquisition spyware, not more useful and legitimate programs.
What we need is the equivalent of a Copyright to our data and a market where we can license that data to the highest bidders if we so chose.
Regrettably, paywalls are still merely an added revenue stream to the data sold on us, and will remain as the revenue stream that it is. No revenue stream will ever disappear. Regardless of my PAID subscription to this periodical, it continues to sell my reading habits, comments and data to Google, Facebook, etc. No revenue stream is exempt from being implemented regardless how unseemly it is.
8
@PAN:
What Jaron proposed, the MID, is basically like the USPTO (the U.S. Patents & Trademarks (Copyrights office).
It appears you understood what he's proposed. However he's proposed multiple MIDs ("Data brokers) that will negotiate (bargain) for and receive payments on your behalf, for your many types of data. Some will provide you with recurring/periodic "royalties" (per use, per year, etc.) while others will be one-time payments.
Computer Scientists know how to setup such a system -- this is nothing new. The current internet, security, even financial software -- all use very similar constructs, brokers, and systems.
In the composition classes I teach, we examine people's relationship with digital technology and I introduce as a parallel example factories during the Industrial Revolution. In the 19th century, wealthy early industrialists built factories and stocked them with raw materials before putting out a call for labor.
Our digital economy is much the same, I tell my students, with one notable difference. Today, the factories (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) are built by those with the means to do so, but they're not stocked with raw materials. Workers/users still provide the labor, but they also now provide the raw materials/data, which makes the factory builders wealthy while leaving the labor force increasingly alienated and isolated.
Change is needed, but it's unlikely to come from the top. The only way to win the data game is to not play. Users getting paid for their data might shift the balance of power for a time, until the developers find new ways to regame the system to their advantage.
28
@Mike Edwards YouTube is a rent-seeking arrangement- and a terribly unfair one, at that. When someone can make a music video that gets 1 million hits, and their monetary reward from Youtube is only around $150, they're being ripped off for their labor & intellectual property the way a sharecropper is.
That is not capitalism. It's feudalism.
(Real-world YouTube example taken from https://www.fastcompany.com/40457448/how-crowdfunding-site-patreon-is-helping-artists-build-media-empires )
Consider that if the creators had been able to charge each consumer one cent- $0.01- for playing their video (possibly with a voluntary option to contribute more- $.02, $.05, $1.00, etc.) At a penny apiece, 1 million page views would gross the creators $10,000.
I can feature Youtube/others being entitled to some of that money. But not 66.6 times as much for 1000000 views as the person that created it, i.e., $150 (as compared to one penny admission charge for each play, directly paid to the creator- a gross of $10,000.)
We need a universally accepted legal tender cybercurrency for micropayments. There's no justification I can think of for control over transfers of 1/10 cent-$1.00 to be monopolized by a handful of third parties who derive it from ad revenue. Individual consumers (with refillable accounts) need the ability to pay tiny monetary increments directly to content creators possessing accounts that can practically accept accept micropayments in return for access to their work.
@DC Reade If youtubers are getting paid anything at all, they're still way ahead of the game when you compare them to most social media users, who provide their labor and content for free.
Also, for the record, I have my youtube channel set up to not be monetized, even though I have 3800+ subscribers who have viewed more than 10,300,00 minutes of video (~20 years) since its inception.
@Mike Edwards Or from Marx: The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.
The internet the society with the billionaire bro.
Evolution is everything. All carbon based life is in constant evolution. The vast majority of species evolved to extinction. Humans may also. But our intelligence may evolve separately from our bodies. It might become silicone based rather than carbon based and live in computers kept running by solar power, without the need for human maintenance. In this way our intelligence endures to contribute to the next evolution, even if our bodies can no longer exist.
What i'm saying is that the next great jump in evolution might be from carbon-based life forms to silicone-based life forms, we're already half-way there.
2
@mr. trout
Get back to me when a machine is invented that cares about whether it's on or off. Which is not to be confused with a computer that "goes to sleep." That isn't what I'm talking about.
Then maybe we can learn whether it can actually possess an autonomous sense of anything else. A "self" capable of subjectively motivated engagement. Awareness of incompleteness. Desire to improve. Does a machine (or the pure information denoted by a software algorithm) need any of that? Why should it want any of that?
Who knows, maybe a self-aware computer would put all of its energy into plunging into superceding Euclid's first theorem, or proving his 5th postulate. An easy way to overheat, imo. But that's just another speculation drawn from the human bandwidth, by a human with a programmed array of drives, like existential survival and the transactions of a carbon-based body with physical space. Qualities that, as far as I can tell, that even the most complex electrical circuitry has no autonomous motivation to model on its own. After all, why limit its potential, by constructing a sense of mortality, or a subjective identity?
I'm open to having my position refuted and corrected. Or simply challenged, by either a rational argument or a faith-based one. But the challenger should have an inkling of which is which.
2
@mr. trout
This reminds me of a section in the companion book to Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' where he hypothesizes on exactly what other intelligent lifeforms could be, and one of them is silicon based.
If you look at the timeline of Homo Sapiens on this planet, we're probably way more than halfway there.
@mr. trout
Get back to me when a machine is invented that cares about whether it's on or off. Which is not to be confused with a computer that "goes to sleep." That isn't what I'm talking about.
Then maybe we can learn whether it can actually possess an autonomous sense of anything else. A "self" capable of subjectively motivated engagement. Awareness of incompleteness. Desire to improve. Does a machine (or the pure information denoted by a software algorithm) need any of that? Why should it want any of that?
Who knows, maybe a self-aware computer would put all of its energy into plunging into superceding Euclid's first theorem, or proving his 5th postulate. An easy way to overheat, imo. But that's just another speculation drawn from the human bandwidth, by a human with a programmed array of drives, like existential survival and the transactions of a carbon-based body with physical space. Qualities that, as far as I can tell, that even the most complex electrical circuitry has no autonomous motivation to model on its own. After all, why limit its potential, by constructing a sense of mortality, or a subjective identity?
I'm open to having my position refuted and corrected. Or simply challenged, by either a rational argument or a faith-based one. But the challenger should have an inkling of which is which.
1
Aspirational - but short on details. We all want the perfect world, question has always been how to get there, 'Who will bell the cat?'
Who is going to run the MIDs - dont they get control of the data, wouldnt they want to maximize the $ paid for the accumulated data? - how would that be different from a Googbook which maximizes shareholder value, 'user experience'?
4
One little problem. The power brokers will never go for it.
3
Very nice. However, I don't know whether pricing personal data would be the best solution. Anyway, we need to try other venues than this fear-mongering internet sharing. I gave up from watching Facebook, for example, since there was so much hatred, and people who were kind in person would become such monsters in chats.
4
@Ademario I too quit FB, and I miss it. What I miss is knowing what my kids and grandkids are doing. My old school friends are up to. And having people to talk with about an illness I recently suffered, people who have been through it before me. I can live without these things, but I wish I didn't have to.
3
@RWP, I have worked as a teacher for many years and FB gave me the opportunity of contacting many of my ex-students, which was great! I could also talk to people with whom I had lost contact for many years and who I liked a lot, which was also marvelous. However, as I said, it was exasperating to watch so many lies and falsehoods and people becoming angry because of provocateurs, sometimes robotic ones. The noise finally got too much loud and above the conversation for me.
7
@RWP, I understand completely. Your divorce from FB, should have extended to a plan to replace that need. Might I suggest, you call and visit them regularly. It's what I did, and there is so much value in that. I cannot emphasize how much better it is to live in reality than over a digital medium.
9