• aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Big tech companies making vast profits off of users providing data for free instead of paying workers wages in exchange for manufacturing goods is only going to deepen the disparity of wealth in society.

      What we desperately need is essentially a Digital Bill of Rights so that we can legally own our own data.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        you’d have to rally everyone against the most profitable businesses right now for this to happen.

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Private ownership ≠ capitalism. Monopoly is a critique of free market capitalism, which naturally leads to a concentration of wealth for those who hold all the assets. Giving people ownership of their own data would help redistribute that wealth in a more equitable way.

          No, it won’t fix the underlying problem of Capitalism, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Private ownership ≠ capitalism.

            Right. It’s private ownership of capital; aka the means of production. You’re saying that data should be owned because it can be used productively. That’s exactly capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

            This is a typical economically right-wing approach. There is a problem, so you just create a new kind of property and call it done. The magic of the market takes care of it, or something. I don’t understand why one would expect a different result from trying the same thing.

            • aleph@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              The point of it is to redistribute wealth using the existing capitalist framework, which is a left-wing endeavour.

              • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                But it doesn’t redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.

                • aleph@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Right, so instead of big tech companies keeping all the profits made from utilizing user data, a big chunk of it goes back into the pockets of the users themselves. Like a cooperative organization that shares profits with its workers.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          you mean theres no infinite growth and eventually it would lead to overextracting wealth from the people? just preposterous.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s almost as if you could look at countries containing 1/6 of the world’s population and see where all of this is going.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        You already own everything by default unless you forfeit your rights by implicitly accepting terms and conditions of a specific service.

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          So basically don’t interact with 99% of online platforms, then?

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes. That’s the whole point of them: you give away your information and most of your rights. Even if it’s something like Lemmy, open source, free, no ads, etc, you’re still forfeiting your rights. Because otherwise you cannot share anything publicly. Only private and inaccessible platforms can protect your rights. For example, a private Telegram channel protected by a password and with forced E2E encryption might protect your rights (I’m not sure about Telegram ToS, so I’m not 100% sure), but public platforms - never. They’re public, that’s the point.

            • aleph@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              That’s fine for the tech-literate minority of us, but totally unrealistic for the average citizen.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The amount is incredibly vaste. If we go by quantity no one here is getting a dime, and if we go by quality…it’s probably the same. Not to mention the logistics of getting everyone their penny or two.

      And the data right now belongs to everyone. For example, Reddit technically ‘owns’ it’s content, but anyone can use it for ml purposes.

      It’s why a lot of these campaigns about data ownership are being pushed. If the gov passes laws, it won’t be to the benefit of the individual but the data aggregators like Reddit, Shutterstock, etc.

      They are playing on emotions and manipulating people into thinking killing AI FOSS and erecting data barriers is in their interest.

    • zoey@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Don’t mind my tipsy Friday rambling, but this is actually an interesting thing to think about. Kinda wonder how that would work, if it were to be real. Maybe there’d be a single centralized data broker, or we could choose from a list of vendors, like how sharing cookies works.
      Would it be per a specific amount of data, identifiable data, what if we just dumped 10 years of chats into it.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Maybe there’d be a single centralized data broker

        Hmm like a government office? With the power to adhere marks to ip that prevent copying and granting rights to people? Like a department of copy-right or something

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        But then think of how much money the big platforms wouldn’t have to bully around users.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I am watching a lot of YouTube. Premium would cost 13€/month, or 130€ if paid yearly. I use an ad blocker and don’t want any of the extra features that are provided to premium users. So until they manage to make unblockable ads, 130€/year could very reasonably be considered profit for the act of selling my data.