If you are not paying for it...
September 22, 2017 10:33 PM   Subscribe

Note that the company’s knowledge about its users isn’t used merely to target ads but to shape the flow of news to them. Since there is so much content posted on the site, the algorithms used to filter and direct that content are the thing that determines what you see: people think their news feed is largely to do with their friends and interests, and it sort of is, with the crucial proviso that it is their friends and interests as mediated by the commercial interests of Facebook. Your eyes are directed towards the place where they are most valuable for Facebook.
-You Are the Product, John Lanchester for the London Review of Books
posted by joedan (41 comments total) 31 users marked this as a favorite
 
It is worth remembering, for all these services, what the perspective is of the person who owns the service. Facebook's goal is to provide content that makes enough users look at ads. If the ads are bad for them, but the advertiser will pay a lot because the ad is bad for the user in a way that's really, really good for the advertiser, Facebook benefits. If Twitter bans Nazis (and it knows who the Nazis are because it has to block them in Germany), their revenue will go down by the amount the Nazis looks at ads, and if those Nazis spend all their time looking for people to victimise on Twitter, that's a lot more ads than people who only look at their feed.

You can have a lot of fun with this viewpoint. Why is the App Store so bad for finding new apps? Because, from Apple's perspective, you buying five or six apps to find the one good one is five or six times better than you finding the right app first try, and if they can say they have millions of apps, that's better than saying you have a thousand even if that thousand covers everyone.

So what is cortex's perspective on MetaFilter?
posted by Merus at 11:50 PM on September 22 [11 favorites]


Facebook is disturbingly good at finding people I'm connected to in the real world, even when they've got nothing in common with my "friends," and I've never friended them or mentioned them on Facebook. But its advertisements are laughably off target and almost never mention anything remotely interesting.
posted by Kevin Street at 12:18 AM on September 23


But its advertisements are laughably off target and almost never mention anything remotely interesting.

Have most consumers ever claimed anything other, of any medium? Its exceptions (speaking to an aggregate here) are the Super Bowl and _____.

Those things don't work on me!

One consumer of targeted millions isn't the objective, as neither spam or branding would have ever been.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 12:39 AM on September 23 [2 favorites]


Not all of it can be written off as branding. A lot of web advertising is just stupid. I'm sure everyone has experienced the phenomenon of buying a thing online, and then seeing a million ads a day for that exact same thing you just bought, right?

I do electronic design. So I get that relentless, repetitive, saturation ad bombing for stuff like specific transistors, or whatever size capacitor I last purchased.

"WE HAVE PN2222A IN STOCK RIGHT NOW"

"HEY YOU, Don't you want to buy another X2 safety rated 0.22uF film capacitor today?"

And I'll see ads for that fucking $0.25 capacitor for a week!
posted by ryanrs at 12:54 AM on September 23 [13 favorites]


So...the intersection of What about my privacy? and Can't You Properly Engage me? is governed by what mechanism?

Yeah, the algorithms are "stupid", thank Colossus, for now. I know what you mean-- How is such implementation a responsible expenditure of any advertising budget? But there's John Wanamaker's (1838-1922) adage of advertising: Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.

I know about the bubble.

This graphic is very niiiice.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 1:15 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]


God, yes, actually can we talk about the advertising of the thing you just bought, a million times over, even in cases of things no sane person would own more than one of? I get this not just on Web ads but inside Amazon itself. Surely, surely Amazon at least wouldn't do this by accident, so... What is the benefit? Baffling.
posted by ominous_paws at 3:14 AM on September 23 [2 favorites]


"One consumer of targeted millions isn't the objective, as neither spam or branding would have ever been."

But it is what FB has been selling to advertisers, this ability to so properly correlate and gauge sentiment that it can target ads at just people who would be most receptive to them. It has been a fantasy all along.

FB has been, and will always be, a scam.
posted by sutt at 3:46 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]


The relentless targeting of content and the feedback/reinforcing effects of getting whatever you might be interested in for a minute fed back to you suggestively a million times a click over and over again can potentially seriously destabilize people with preexisting identity boundary and obsessive compulsive tendencies. It becomes a machine for forcing people's momentary beliefs and interests back onto them in a way that can disturb people trying to manage various borderline disorders and other mental health issues.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:22 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]


God, yes, actually can we talk about the advertising of the thing you just bought, a million times over, even in cases of things no sane person would own more than one of? I get this not just on Web ads but inside Amazon itself. Surely, surely Amazon at least wouldn't do this by accident, so... What is the benefit? Baffling.

I mostly have ads blocked but I when I don't, this always makes me laugh. It would be smart for them to target me with ads for things I am searching for (and therefore, might be tempted to buy), and with some kinds of consumable products (soap or beer, say) I can see how buying some could lead to ads suggesting that you buy more. But if I buy an ironing board, paying money to show me ads for more ironing boards is likely a waste.

There was just yesterday a very harsh article on the front page of the NY Times about Facebook's typical pattern of ignoring problems until finally, much too late, being forced to partially fix them. I detest them as a company, but I keep my account mostly because I like to see people's baby pictures.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:44 AM on September 23 [1 favorite]


But if I buy an ironing board, paying money to show me ads for more ironing boards is likely a waste.

I guess this works with certain products that you routinely purchase but you're right. How often am I buying an electric kettle? It's usually every two years (we drink a lot of tea in this house), and this is the timeline for when they usually burn out.

But sure, show me 15 other kettles on sale when I just bought one yesterday. Maybe I what that guy from Memento had and will forget that I bought a kettle yesterday but the driving force of my life is to buy a kettle, every day for the rest of my life.
posted by Fizz at 4:48 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]


I’m always relieved when I see ads for things I’ve just bought, because the alternative is the advertisers knowing my entire purchase history — and that would be far worse.

The fact that FB is now claiming it *can* find out your offline completion (“I saw an ad on Facebook and bought the product in a shop”) is hideous
posted by bonaldi at 5:26 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]


What intrigues me about Facebook is the way it inculcates US coporate norms. Pictures of breastfeeding moms have to go because sex, trash talk and lies can stay because free speech. It goes to the core of how the site functions and looks. Advertising is everywhere. Convenience is everything. Metrics are king, innovation is key. Design should be a bit bland, seamless, frictionless. Business Casual but Authoritative. A little Executive.
posted by dmh at 5:35 AM on September 23 [25 favorites]


I do not see how this is so insidious. I just checked my FB feed for targeted ads. A few ads for Marriott Rewards, Hyatt hotels. The NYT subscription offer. "Dolly" moving service. Some movie called "Only the Brave" about wild-fire fighters. LEGO Movie. Some expensive hoodies priced in GBP. Martin Scorsese's "Masterclass" film classes. Aquitalia shoes (?). Expensive looking armchairs and lighting from a company I've never heard of.

This all seems really boring. I booked one hotel room months ago to see the eclipse in Nashville, so that's why I'm getting the hotel stuff. My condo is for sale, so maybe that's the Dolly ad. I have zero interest in those movies, though I do see movies once in a while. I live in the USA, so I won't be buying clothing from the UK, though I have bought clothing online before. Some friends of mine "Like" Martin Scorsese. I read the NYT once in a while, but do not subscribe.

What is so crazy about that? Am I getting taken advantage of? It's 99% bog-standard FB friend posts, silly stuff family photos, upcoming musical shows, photos of various activities people I know are doing. Lots of stupid, non-commercial stuff.

"Pictures of breastfeeding moms have to go because sex,..." Crazy, because someone posted a photo of a breastfeeding mom in a restaurant in my feed like 2 days ago. Was the leader image for a non-negative article about breast feeding in public.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 5:56 AM on September 23


When I use Facebook, I always look at my "feed" in order... using this url:

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr

It seems to me that I see everything people post, if I keep on top of it, and always read until I hit stuff I've seen before. (More than just 1 thing though, because even a reply seems to reset timestamps)

Does this actually work, or am I being fooled by the algorithm?
posted by MikeWarot at 5:57 AM on September 23 [2 favorites]


I would like someone to explain this to me:

I was at a friend of a friends house while they were setting up their oculus rift. I joked that these wouldn't sell well in Japan, and by way of explanation I invoked a tour of a typical Tokyo apartment on Youtube. We all laughed and agreed there was no space for it. The End.

But then a week later, at home, Youtube recommended another tour of a Japanese apartment. The baffling thing is, we have no overlap. I'm not on social media of any sort, really. Does Mefi count? The only thing I can think of is that the about five years ago this guy sent me a Minecraft gift code on gmail. That's the only spot we touch on the venn diagram. And that was two degrees of separation from his friend with the oculus. And I've never searched for Japanese apartments before, I just know they're pretty small.

The whole thing gave me the creeps.
posted by adept256 at 5:58 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]


I talk to my daughter a lot on the FB "private" chat. It took me a long time to realize that I was getting things in my feed related to stuff we had chatted about recently. Not just ads, but "content" such as a HuffPo piece or Buzzfeed article. So say if I mentioned making spaghetti for dinner, I would see very soon afterward an ad for a spaghetti pot. Or say we had a conversation about reproductive rights and a Patheos article would show up. It's like a creepy, unseen version of Clippy the MS virtual assistant... "oh, I see you are interested in abortion! Would you like to see an article?"

What really creeps me out is when topics my husband and I have recently discussed in our own goddamn living room show up in my feed. I mean, I'm sure it is just coincidence but there is a small part of me that thinks my phone is listening and feeding back info to FB. That's crazy, right? RIGHT?
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 6:44 AM on September 23 [9 favorites]


I've had a few moments seeing ads for things I've not discussed online, but have discussed out loud. Near my phone. Really really keen to put this down to coincidence.
posted by ominous_paws at 7:01 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]


they say they aren't

Whether or not you trust a company run by someone who once said this about Facebook users and their information is up to you, I guess:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
posted by entropicamericana at 7:18 AM on September 23 [10 favorites]


But then a week later, at home, Youtube recommended another tour of a Japanese apartment.

Have an Android phone?
posted by Western Infidels at 7:38 AM on September 23 [1 favorite]


Does this actually work, or am I being fooled by the algorithm?

You're being fooled. "Most recent" or chronological view does not show you everything your friends post. Not even close. I can verify this by going to the individual pages of friends who seem to have been quiet for awhile and seeing their daily posts that never appear on my feed. (No, I didn't unfollow them.)

If you have groups (like "Close Friends" or "Mefites"), you can get a feed of just their posts, and that seems to have less or no filtering. This is what I generally use because if they're not a close friend, I usually don't much care what they post. (My definition of "Facebook close friend" is kind of wide, though. More like "people who won't be horrified if I mention what underwear I buy.")
posted by AFABulous at 8:53 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]


adept256, I have had conversations in person about subjects I never discuss or search for online (nothing juicy, stuff like a friend's sailboat trip). Shortly thereafter I'll get ads and promoted posts related to sailboats. They are definitely listening to what you say. I will turn off my phone or leave it in the car if I'm discussing a genuinely sensitive topic.
posted by AFABulous at 8:55 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]


I read a great breakdown recently for the "I bought an electric kettle and now Amazon thinks I want kettles forever, lol!" targeting, but I can't find the comment.

Basically, the numbers work out for the vendor. The chances of any given person buying a kettle each day are, say, .0001%. Kettles aren't a recurring spend. Makes targeting people tricky. However, if someone just bought a kettle, the likelihood that they'll buy another is, say .05% -- maybe this kettle didn't work out, maybe they like it and want to buy another as a gift, maybe they get really into kettles and want to upgrade. Whatever. But .05% > .0001%. For Kettles Incorporated, it makes sense to select an Amazon or Facebook audience of recent buyers.

> The baffling thing is, we have no overlap. I'm not on social media of any sort, really. Does Mefi count? The only thing I can think of is that the about five years ago this guy sent me a Minecraft gift code on gmail. That's the only spot we touch on the venn diagram.

I actually have no idea to what extent social graphs for ad targeting make associations via physical smartphone proximity, but I assume you can figure out if two people regularly interact because their phones keep meeting up at the same spots/times. I know I've seen pitches for to-the-meter geotargeting for retail coupons -- e.g., if someone with a spend of >$20 at Starbucks over the last year but no purchases for three months walks past a Starbucks instead of turning in, text/push/whatever them a coupon good for the next 30 minutes.
posted by postcommunism at 9:02 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]


I'll come right out and say it: remarketing totally works on me. I'm the kind of person who gets it in my head that I might want a thing but doesn't pull the trigger for weeks. I'm DEAD sure there are products I would otherwise have forgotten about that I ended up buying because after I looked at them once I saw them all over the internet. In fact my new shoes are almost certainly in my possession because they were remarketed to me relentlessly for at least a month after I first looked them up.

So, sorry about that, I didn't mean to make the internet more annoying for all of you but I am demonstrably justifying that ad spend on someone's spreadsheet.
posted by potrzebie at 9:16 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]


I'll come right out and say it: remarketing totally works on me.

DonaldSutherland.jpg
posted by lazycomputerkids at 9:22 AM on September 23 [2 favorites]


If Facebook isn't doing anything wrong, why are they so afraid of us finding out what they're doing? If I incorporate or become a sovcit or something, can I have "trade secrets" and "intellectual property" too?

I do not and never have had a Facebook account. At some point, this became a big deal to people and they'd start getting all hostile about it the way people get reflexively hostile about vegetarians. Like at some point, it became apparent to a lot of people that not using Facebook was like an ethical choice rather than just a preference, so insecure people assumed abstainers were all judging them.

And, of course, several of those people either thoughtlessly or maliciously handed over my contact information to Facebook so it could send me 'invitations' to join and build a shadow profile, I'm sure.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:45 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]


God, yes, actually can we talk about the advertising of the thing you just bought, a million times over, even in cases of things no sane person would own more than one of? I get this not just on Web ads but inside Amazon itself. Surely, surely Amazon at least wouldn't do this by accident, so... What is the benefit? Baffling.

OK, so assume a...let's say 1% 'utter dissatisfaction rate' ("this is broken/a total piece of shit, I need a new one/something completely different") and a 1% 'utter satisfaction rate' ("OMG this is the best thing I've ever owned! I have to get one for my mom!"). Even at 1%, that is an a$$fu$king$hit-ton of money. Does it make sense now? What I find baffling is why anyone in 2017 is allowing ads on their computer when they know that they are little more than colorful trojan horses filled with spyware, demon cookies, and computer AIDS. Adblockers, Ghostery, stat!
posted by sexyrobot at 9:54 AM on September 23 [2 favorites]


FB has been, and will always be, a scam.
--sutt

If Facebook isn't doing anything wrong, why are they so afraid of us finding out what they're doing?
--ernielundquist

__FaceBook prediction #312__
By 2024, of the 41% of FB deceased profiles, 22% provide "click farm" jobs for 90.3 million children in developing nations though any reliable approximation of deceased, but "vital" users will be known only to FB's legal department and a closely guarded trade secret.

posted by lazycomputerkids at 10:22 AM on September 23


If Facebook isn't doing anything wrong, why are they so afraid of us finding out what they're doing?

This is one vector I am so creeped out about. When the incident I described above, well facebook owns oculus rift, and I put it on my head and it showed an entirely different reality. Which is the point? It is the point! But then beyond that virtual reality, was that a factor in finding me, and knowing about my apparent interest in Japanese apartments?

You put oculus rift on your head, it tracks your head movements and all kinds of biometrics, then somehow youtube decides... sorry I'm in future shock.

I feel like this is the realm of sci-fi author's warnings we recognize too late. But worse, we ignored real-science authors who warned us about climate change. And worse. They told us about the singularity, but the frogs didn't notice the jacuzzi was getting hotter.
posted by adept256 at 11:27 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]


Have an Android phone?

In light of some other comments here, I'd like to clarify: I'm only suggesting that

1) Google definitely knows any given Android phone's location (unless the owner has taken steps)
2) Google often knows the location of other kinds of clients too (like desktops or laptops)

So it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Google to guess that adept256 had been in very close proximity to a Tokyo apartment tour video before. I'm not suggesting that Android phones listen to you all the time.

But I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone would be paranoid to hold such suspicions in this day and age, either.
posted by Western Infidels at 12:03 PM on September 23


How can people use facebook without installing FB Purity? Among other things, it kills the ads dead.

I haven't seen an ad on facebook (in a browser) in ages and ages. There are occasional waves on mobile every few months where I have a phase of blocking the advertisers pages and then reducing my mobile usage because it inflames my ad allergy, and then they back off for a while. (why do they do this? are they actually measuring those two metrics?)
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:06 PM on September 23 [3 favorites]


But I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone would be paranoid to hold such suspicions in this day and age, either.

Relevant soundtrack for this thread: Radiohead - Paranoid Android
posted by Fizz at 12:22 PM on September 23


Yes excellent, the "just bought a piece of shit toaster and need a new one" is exactly the sort of reason I was grasping for and not finding myself. Thanks Metafilter!
posted by ominous_paws at 12:47 PM on September 23 [2 favorites]


I am at this very moment seeing ads on FB for a skirt I bought last week. Also for a poster that says KEEP CALM AND YUB NUB which...no.
posted by emjaybee at 1:14 PM on September 23


Do you have FB Messenger installed on your phone? Because yeah, they ARE listening to you.
posted by elsietheeel at 1:28 PM on September 23 [2 favorites]


The thing about retargeting is, I bought LastPass for our company and my advertising at work is now 100% LastPass. I've already bought it. I'm not going to increase my spend. I got the Team accounts and everything. What possible call to action could you have, especially when reminding me it exists?
posted by Merus at 5:15 PM on September 23


I can't believe I hadn't thought about the "you just bought one, but it is terrible, so now you need to buy another," since I've done exactly that any number of times. I rescind my critique of the practice, though I still think they could do it smarter (as in, I just bought a toaster, so in addition to More Toasters, maybe show me some things that people typically buy with toasters, whatever that might be).
posted by Dip Flash at 6:35 PM on September 23


Why is the App Store so bad for finding new apps?

wishful thinking?
...explosion of app usage has led to a surge of personal communication, consumer convenience, and on-demand entertainment. No longer can a teenager in possession of a smartphone ever again complain of being bored.

But this technological revolution has also come at a cost in terms of economic disruption, mass distraction and the erosion of privacy. In Europe, where citizens’ rights tend to trump consumer convenience, a different sensibility prevails. Here, US tech companies are sometimes portrayed as vampirical colonialists, sucking all the data out of European consumers, reducing them to bloodless advertising fodder.

The EU has responded by tackling some of the US tech giants on competition grounds and adopting a far-reaching General Data Privacy Regulation that comes into force next year. The European Commission has estimated that by 2020 the value of citizens’ personal data will reach €1tn, almost 8 per cent of EU gross domestic product. It is determined that this valuable resource should be utilised more responsibly.

An EU-funded report published on Monday sketches out a plan for reclaiming digital sovereignty by creating an alternative data ecosystem. The Decode (Decentralised Citizens Owned Data Ecosystem) plan describes how individual users, businesses and communities could benefit from the creation of a true sharing economy, a data commons.

Decode will test its methodology in pilot projects in Amsterdam and Barcelona in the next two years. To take one example, Decode will help the Amsterdam municipality work with the FairBnB community platform to provide short-term accommodation for visitors, reinvesting profits in local initiatives. This is a response to Airbnb, which stands accused of pushing up rents and failing to provide data about hosts who violate local laws.

It would be a wonderful thing if such projects flourished and Europe could pioneer a more plural form of data capitalism. Users around the world, including the US, would cheer them on.

But Europe’s landscape is littered with the corpses of grandiose tech projects that perished in the marketplace. Remember how France’s former president Jacques Chirac wanted to create Quaero to take on Google? Sadly, the state-backed search engine got lost somewhere along the way. In some respects, this latest Decode initiative feels like an attempt to pick up digital pennies in the path of an advancing steamroller.

What would catalyse a true transition is if a leading tech company were to help redesign the digital economy by enabling users to control their own data. What is needed is another revolutionary product that could change everything. Apple, which uses the data it amasses to build better products rather than to sell on to advertisers, seems most attuned to this philosophy. Over to you, Cupertino?
-Reclaiming personal data for the common good
-Me, my data and I: The future of the personal data economy [pdf (1000.1 KB)]
-Attention on Digital Monopolies
While I am happy to see the attention on the issue, I am concerned that regulators are missing the fundamental source of monopoly power in the digital world: network effects arising from the control of data. This will continue to lead to power law size distributions in which the number 1 in a market has a dominant position and is many times bigger than the number 2. That dynamic will play itself out not just for the very large companies which regulators are starting to look at but will be true in lots of other markets as well. The only way to go up against this effect is to shift computational power to the network participants... as an enduser I should be able to have all my interactions with digital systems intermediated by software that I control 100%.
posted by kliuless at 9:41 PM on September 23 [3 favorites]


sexyrobot: What I find baffling is why anyone in 2017 is allowing ads on their computer when they know that they are little more than colorful trojan horses filled with spyware, demon cookies, and computer AIDS.

I don't get it either. And similarly, here's another thing I don't get: many of my friends are hackers. And many of those hacker friends use Facebook. Many of those FB using hackers even use the FB app. Which is, privacy-wise, pretty much the worst app you can have.

Why on earth? These are the people who know exactly why they shouldn't!
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:24 AM on September 24 [3 favorites]


Why don't the executives at Facebook determine the average annual revenue they receive per customer, then offer a new Facebook where users agree to pay the sum of [average annual revenue + $0.01] per year for an ad-free Facebook. In addition to not carrying ads, Facebook agrees to do nothing with your data that would earn it any money.

If none of the social media giants have done this, what's holding them back?
posted by A. Davey at 6:40 PM on September 24 [1 favorite]


I have a few guesses why they don't let people opt out.

1. A lot of the value is in the volume. They're not just selling ads. They're doing social experiments and building behavioral models and tools to manipulate sentiment. And it's important that they don't let people opt out, because a big part of the value of that data is in its sheer volume. They even maintain shadow profiles on people who don't have Facebook accounts. Their goal is to have dossiers on everyone, so letting people opt out devalues the overall value of their ultimate product, which would be a catalog of everyone's personal information.

2. They don't want to draw attention to what they're doing. If they launch a feature where you can opt out of having your personal information used for ad delivery, it's going to get media attention, which will spur a new round of questions about what information they collect and how they use it. They don't people to think about that, they don't want people asking questions, and they sure as hell don't want to answer them.

3. If they sell a service for money, maybe there's even a possibility that they could be held legally accountable for providing it, which could mean, again, answering questions about what data they collect and how they use it.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:11 AM on September 25 [4 favorites]


What if large tech firms were regulated like sewage companies?
How might utility-style regulation work for Silicon Valley firms? Consider a thought experiment with Facebook. Its 1.3bn users pay nothing, but give it their data and control over the adverts they see. Facebook then sells advertisers targeted access to its users, pulling in $27bn last year. Imagine that the service were “unbundled”, giving users control. All would own their data and could choose whether to sell them to advertisers. They would also have to pay Facebook a fee to compensate it for the cost of creating and operating the network.

The big question is how much compensation—profits—Facebook and other firms would deserve if they were treated as utilities. It is possible to get a rough idea. Assume a cost of capital of 12%—a high figure to reflect the risk inherent in tech firms’ models. Estimating their RABs is harder. They have some physical assets such as data centres, but unlike utilities their main resources are not pylons, pipes and property, but software and ideas that they create or acquire by buying rivals. Only some of these intangibles appear on their balance-sheets; the vast sums spent on research and development (R&D) do not. But you can reconfigure their balance-sheets as if all their R&D in the past had been recognised as an asset with a 20-year life. Alphabet and Facebook would have a combined RAB of $160bn. If their returns were capped at 12%, operating profits would fall by 65% and 81% respectively.

If their services were unbundled, users would benefit. Using figures from 2016, the average Facebook user would pay $15 a year to the firm for its return on its RAB, but they would pocket $23 from selling advertisers their data and the right to be advertised to. A Google user would pay $37 a year to Google, but collect $45 from advertisers. Those are fairly small sums, but richer users with particularly valuable data could make much more.
also btw...
The worm has turned against big tech, and it's overdue
posted by kliuless at 10:52 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]


« Older What Happened?   |   West, Jim West - before he was wicki-wicki-wild... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments