Skip to main content

Against the IFP

Centralizing control over a currency’s infrastructure is a seemingly obvious mistake.

One would think any Austro-libertarian worth their salt would be able to see thru such a charade. Yet here we are, again. Face to face with economic illiteracy. Not garden variety lefist economic illiteracy, but one far more stinging and painful - one which comes from within our own community, rather than from without. 

First, Bitcoiners faced the economic illiteracy of maximalism and small blockers. Attempts to masquerade money’s primary function as value storage (Ammous) or rejecting Menger’s Regression Theorem altogether (Szabo) are luckily demonstrably false. Nevertheless, the shock of our fellow Bitcoiners illiteracy was like an unexpected slap in the face. Suddenly, we were forced to confront the fact that the ignorance of our allies in the fight for sound money, had led them astray. Yet, thru BCH we were thankfully able to keep Satoshi’s dream of peer to peer cash intact. 
Well, crypto anarch…

The Case for Data Mining

7/31/2020 Derrell McIver 

With even more hilarious Congressional hearings, Big Tech has been in the news a lot recently. Popular former presidential candidate Andrew Yang has been discussing the alleged evils of this industry in two of his recent podcasts. In May, he interviewed Jaron Lanier. Lanier is a computer philosopher who argues that the government should prohibit social media companies from selling user’s data to third parties, effectively forcing companies like Facebook and Twitter to charge a service fee. Yang expressed support for this idea. He also, in another episode a month later, said that, “the economics stink for consumers.” He bemoaned how Facebook is currently worth $650 billion, and how “the vast majority of that is on the backs of selling access to us and monetizing our data.” However, he makes an exception for himself by claiming that when he used people's data for targeted ads during his campaign, it was of course "in a very above board way."

Let’s evaluate these claims. First, we need to define the supposed problem. Yang and others are discussing how social media sites collect information--anything from demographics like age and location to recent searches on browsers--and sell that data to companies who want to target advertisements to people. This is a very unique business strategy. It essentially sets up two consumer markets for social media: business-customers who want to run ads and user-customers who want to use the service. Both of these customers are paying for a product. Business-customers pay dollars in exchange for the ability for specific customers to see their advertisements. The user-customer pays with their data in exchange for the ability to use the service. An example from my personal life, this means I get ads for Old Spice while my wife gets ads for Dove.

Clearly this arrangement benefits the business-customer, but how does it also benefit the users? First, assuming the trade is voluntary, we can infer that the exchange is beneficial; otherwise the user-customer would not partake. Specifically, the user benefits from the service. The user values their data at some $X and the service at some $Y. We can tell then that $X is less than $Y because they voluntarily trade their data for the service. Those who do not value $X over $Y, will simply not participate in social media. Though we cannot determine an objective price of data and the service, we can make generalizations about them.

What does your data cost to you? How much did you pay-in dollars or barter-for the information of your age, gender, location and web searches? Nothing. In fact, you do not even have to spend time reporting and organizing this data. Social media companies will do it for you. That of course, does not mean that everyone automatically values their data at zero. Some people will want to keep all of this information private and those who value their privacy very highly may not participate in social media. This is a perfectly fine evaluation, and no one is by any means coerced into tweeting.

But many do feel like they "have to" be on social media in order to get news and relevance. While this is phrased as if it is some kind of coercive arrangement, it is not. In fact, it only shows how much these users value the service. It is true that social media has allowed an unprecedented democratization of information. We can not only receive constant updates on what is going on but can often communicate directly with the people involved. Don't like something a politician says? Tell them and everyone else who reads those comments why. People feeling like they "need" social media are not anymore coerced than those who "need" that shirt because it is on sale. Truly, the benefit to the user is generally enormous. The user-customer also benefits from target ads. Instead of having to see irrelevant products that I would never buy, I can be shown more specific products. I, as a man, benefit from only seeing Old Spice instead of Dove. If I was shown the latter, then both my time and the company's time would be wasted since I won't buy the product anyways. Not only that, but I can also see products specific to my location, like apartments, cars, and jobs.

All of this, though, has assumed that the transaction is voluntary. Part of this voluntary assumption is that users have adequate information about the arrangement. Yang complains that people usually skip over the complicated legalese of the infamous Terms and Conditions. This, though, is irrelevant. Facebook never forces--or even asks--its users to be irresponsible and not read the contract you are agreeing to. In fact, if you wanted to meet with a lawyer to discuss the Terms and Conditions before you made an account, you very well could. Not only is this admission of irresponsibility not relevant, but the alleged legalese is false as well. Facebook clearly says, in the second paragraph of their Terms that, "By using our Products, you agree that we can show you ads that we think will be relevant to you and your interests. We use your personal data to help determine which ads to show you." They are not trying to hide it in the small print. 

However, even if we can accept the argument that a normal person cannot be expected to read contracts before signing them and that somehow Facebook's phrasing is too complex, there still would not be weight to the argument that this is a coercive arrangement. What opponents of data marketing assume, and what I have assumed so far, is that data is property. In other words, we assume that we own our information in the first place. However, data cannot be properly considered as property. Data falls into the general category of intellectual property, and thus falls into the same problems that IP does. Data, like all IP, is not a scarce resource. If I take your data (say I remember your birthday so I can buy you a present), this does not take away your knowledge of when you were born. Of course, an individual can take a Ron Swanson approach and never divulge personal information to anyone, including social media companies. This preference is acceptable, but Ron Swanson then does not then feel like he "must have" a birthday present. 

Further, we quickly run into the issue of who owns data if we give that it can be owned. Who owns my birthday? Clearly,  I would have a stake in it. Would my parents as well? What about my aunts, uncles, and grandparents present at my birth? Who owns my interest? If my wife happens to see me googling "cool amphibians for sale" and then buys me an axolotl, can I sue her? Of course not. These might seem ridiculous but in fact we use other people's data constantly. Did you ask your mother's permission before using her maiden name for a security question? Of course not.

Data mining is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Not only can we trade our data for unprecedented access to information, but we can also benefit from target ads that do not waste our time. We access all of these services free of charge! I do not wish to make the Big Tech companies out as some benevolent force that we should thank. Instead we should see the trade we are making as any other. We should still monitor them to make sure they keep their end of the bargain. We should investigate them to ensure they are collecting only what they are in their Terms and Conditions. We should seek clarification on legalese or computer jargon where there is any. We should enter into these contracts with as much thought and distrust that we do when buying a used car. But we certainly should not use violence to prohibit these kinds of mutually beneficial arrangements. 


Popular posts from this blog

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Technological Agorism I: Digital Feudalism

We live in the age of digital feudalism.

In earlier times, peasants saw their productive capital rerouted to their feudal lords. Likewise, we modern serfs see the monetary value of our digital presence being rerouted to big tech CEOs. And just as medieval lords used this capital to maintain their elaborate manors & their status in the nobility (thru kickbacks to the monarch), these modern day lords do precisely the same. The advent of tokenization promises to change this.

Big tech has profited enormously from the digital peasantry in two ways. 
They earn money based on the popularity of user-generated content. In other words, we use FB, Twitter, & IG to view content posted not by these companies, but by the individuals who use their platforms. Big tech collects & monetizes our personal data & has been doing so for quite some time. Own Your Content The tokenization of digital content has already started the process of disrupting legacy business models. Seeing as the fir…

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 

Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…