If you watch 60 Minutes, you likely saw the segment this past weekend dealing with data privacy. The piece described what is likely to be political pressure for Google, Facebook and other online services to change behavior that collects personal information. The link I provide references the first segments of this program and the first portion of this segment is the piece about online tech and privacy. The segment includes the pro-Privacy statement from Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and a description of the GDPR privacy policy now enforced in Europe.
I have mixed reasons related to this pressure. I doubt anyone would be in favor of the misuse of their personal data and it seems clear that personal data played a role in manipulating personal opinions during the 2016 Presidential campaign. To react negatively to this situation, it is important to understand that your beliefs were “understood” based on your online behavior and you received experiences designed to influence your behavior while you were assuming you were receiving information that was unbiased. This political approach was based on the same approach taken to provide you ads related to your interests. I assume most would perceive the political manipulation as a bad thing and the targeted ads as a benefit. One point that concerns policy people is that in both cases you might not be aware of how things work.
What I found lacking in the interviews conducted by the 60-Minute staff, e.g., the interview with Tim Cook, was the failure to address the business model supporting these online services. Apple makes its money by selling computers, phones, and selling apps and content for these devices. Apple does not provide free services. Google, Facebook and other social media and online service providers offer free access which requires considerable infrastructure and expensive personnel. These services make their money on ads. To compete in providing ads that are more desirable, they collect personal information to provide “useful” ads. In addition, they may sell the information used to provide targeted ads to other parties. I am guessing most would conclude that it is this selling of information that is most troubling.
There is more to the business model sustaining the present environment than the service providers. Some of the money from the ads goes to content developers. The online companies pay content developers to include ads and businesses (and politicians in some cases) pay the online providers to use ads for their causes. The content creators are the often unrecognized parties in these disputes. You may assume Google and Facebook make too much money – too much instead of a reasonable return. This assumption ignores the work of the content producers and how they are compensated
This is certainly a complex situation and I wonder how carefully citizens and politicians have made the effort to understand. Legislation is probably warranted, but must be sophisticated enough to recognize the situation of all parties involved. The wrong message – you have been wronged and have the right to block ads – will eliminate compensation to professional content creators. We may be left with pictures of dogs, cats, babies and with content not paid for by consumers. Content paid for by others will likely be heavily dominated by those with an agenda. The agenda will often be to influence consumers in one way or another.