NYTimes: Your Data Is Crucial to a Robotic Age. Shouldn’t You Be Paid for It?

NYTimes: Your Data Is Crucial to a Robotic Age. Shouldn’t You Be Paid for It?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/business/economy/user-data-pay.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront

This article presents an interesting concept.  We should be paid for the data that we generate.  I believe that as a society we readily acknowledge and accept that we are trading our user data for the services we love.  We loosely understand that the reason we get to use Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, LinkedIn, and other social networks is because they harvest our data, package it, and sell it to advertisers.  This presents a two-sided problem.  

From the consumer perspective, we want relevancy.  We don't actually view ads in Instagram as advertisements, but instead brand discoveries.  For this to work correctly, Instagram has to serve up content that we deem relevant.  Unfortunately, that model of accuracy is built upon a record of our actions.  These actions can be unreliable.  We may use a pseudonym, we may have a dated address, and we may inaccurately report important demographic data.  User data is a valuable commodity.  And quality is the foundation on which the information age is built. If people were paid, they would engage in accurately tagging and revealing data.  

Even more interesting about this concept is that these new social network and digital businesses provided limited economic benefit.  In fact, they contribute to income inequality - returning tremendous value to shareholders, but not necessarily their employees.  Consumer data amounts to work the companies get for free.  With tech companies between 5-15% of income go to labor.  With Walmart, over 80% goes to labor.  This model could rebalance equity exchange and create a better experience for both the users and the digital platforms.