this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
836 points (97.3% liked)
memes
10477 readers
4790 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
you'd have to rally everyone against the most profitable businesses right now for this to happen.
The solution for capitalism is more capitalism? Have you never played monopoly?
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.
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.
The point of it is to redistribute wealth using the existing capitalist framework, which is a left-wing endeavour.
But it doesn't redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.
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.
Like a corporation that pays wages. Yeah, trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
Yes, and legislation that forces companies to pay higher wages (or in this case, royalties given back to users) is itself a form of wealth distribution that can help to reduce income inequality.
We can talk about the overthrow of capitalism, if you like, but that's a whole separate issue.
You want to force people (not just companies) to pay for use of a new kind of intellectual property. That is capital income. You want money to go to property owners.
If you think about this for a second, you should realize that this means lower wages. If a bigger share goes to property owners, then employees must have a smaller share. The money can't come from anywhere else.
I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.
The (center-)left take on that is: "You didn't build that." It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.
Then there's people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?
I see what you're getting at, but that's a flawed analogy.
Firstly, public roads are paid for collectively through taxes but everyone can benefit from them, not just large multinational corporations. That's not currently how user data is used in the context we are discussing, since the users themselves do not benefit materially from the data they produce.
A more accurate use of a road analogy would be to say that, at the moment, the users build the roads themselves (generate their data), and the private companies say to the users "Thanks very much for building the roads, we're now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."
An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.
Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it's still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It's not left-wing redistribution.
I don't know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn't you be all for that?
you mean theres no infinite growth and eventually it would lead to overextracting wealth from the people? just preposterous.
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.
You already own everything by default unless you forfeit your rights by implicitly accepting terms and conditions of a specific service.
So basically don't interact with 99% of online platforms, then?
Yes. Seriously stop giving them free content.
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.
That's fine for the tech-literate minority of us, but totally unrealistic for the average citizen.