Comment by ryanwaggoner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanwaggoner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal.

This seems so ludicrously backwards to me. How is my decision to upload my data to Facebook a meaningful claim that they should run their platform in a particular way for my convenience, even if there's no business justification?

Allow me a tortured metaphor :)

Imagine you own a very popular art museum and you let any artist display their work there for free. Visiting requires a free membership, but visitors must apply for it. Competing museums and galleries are always trying to get a membership so they can come through and scope out which artists are most popular and then woo them away. You reject those memberships.

How on earth is this unfair to anyone?

Now, letting those competing museums in is obviously better for the artist, but does that give them any right to demand it? You're providing this space for them for free! You're providing a huge audience to them, for free! What possible justification do they have for demanding that you let your competition come strolling through and hurt your business just so it'll make their life a little better? If you don't like it, you can pull your work from the museum at any time.

So many of the critiques of companies like Facebook and Apple come down to people wanting all the benefits that these platforms provide, but without any terms, inconvenience, restrictions, or tradeoffs. Ridiculous.

Let's go with the tortured metaphor.

Popular art museums generally run with allowing entry without requiring membership. They make up for that by collecting donations or entry fee, running a comparatively expensive cafe, and ensuring everyone leaves via the gift shop. They might heavily promote, and employ people to individually sell memberships, or give free membership in exchange for monthly gift shop and offers spam. One or two might be a little too heavy handed in promoting membership over visit.

They don't plant a bug in your pocket without knowledge, or consent to learn what other art museums and galleries you are visiting to assess if they are a worthy target of restriction or takeover. They don't insist on knowing your entire contact list and SMS history just to look at the pictures. They don't ban employees of other galleries and museums from visiting. Not least because 9 times out of 10 they would not know if they worked for a different city's gallery.

That's enough torturing. ;)

One of the above is a fair exchange, that can be freely and knowingly chosen. The other is using undisclosed and underhand methods to get extra leverage. That, by definition, cannot be fair. Turns out it's illegal too.

This is one of the very rare cases where I wish the UK had a little more of the US's litigious culture. In my 50 odd years it's the first and only case. Normally I wish for the reverse. :)

I added the membership bit just to make the whole "rejection of competitors" part make more sense.

They don't plant a bug in your pocket without knowledge, or consent to learn what other art museums and galleries you are visiting to assess if they are a worthy target of restriction or takeover. They don't insist on knowing your entire contact list and SMS history just to look at the pictures. They don't ban employees of other galleries and museums from visiting. Not least because 9 times out of 10 they would not know if they worked for a different city's gallery.

I'm not defending all of Facebook's practices. In particular, any surreptitious attempt to collect sensitive user data without permission, or in violation of permission, is terrible. We might differ on what constitutes "sensitive user data" or "permission" but whatever.

Regardless, that's not what we're actually talking about here, and if the museum in question did ask for user consent to a full cavity search before going through, I don't think that actually changes the calculus of what's fair for them to provide to their competitors.

If the museum waived the entry fees for users that opted into a having their info tracked and the data monetized there are probably people who would prefer to compensate the museum that way. It'd probably open up access to the museum to poorer people that couldn't afford the ticket. Heck, I'd probably do it. My contact info has almost certainly been collected already, so for me it's basically instant savings. Your main criticism is that the data collection is undisclosed. I'm sure there's debate to be had over whether Facebook was transparent about it's data collection, but they always did tell users about it in some capacity.

How much would Facebook cost if users has to pay cash? I think the Economist did a survey on this topic with Google search and the average price people were willing to pay was $1,500 a year. If Google switched from monetizing user data and advertising to charging money, how much human productivity would be lost because some people can't afford a good search engine? How much would this exacerbate academic difficulties of poorer student if we add the fact that their classmates can search online information more effectively because their parents can afford Google search?

The lack of tangibility of paying for products with personal data instead of money can be irksome, but it has created an unprecedented ability to build large, complex services while delivering them free of (monetary) cost to the end user.

That might be the average price Economist readers would pay. I suspect it would be a lot lower for most users.

That aside - FB never gave users that choice. Where many media services - including AOL, streaming media companies, and newspapers (and the Economist) survive by charging a subscription, FB has never attempted to use that business model.

Why? Because FB has always been a data harvesting and user monitoring/profiling operation that happens to operate a social media front, rather than vice versa.

Ditto Google for search.

And "telling users about it in some capacity" is very different to giving users a list of buyers and full details describing what their personal data was used for.

Realistically, no one outside the industry - and not that many people in the industry - understand where this data ends up and what it's used for.

Pretending otherwise is casuistry and special pleading. There is no way users can estimate the true value of their data, either individually or in aggregate - because the value is determined by buyers who remain hidden and unnamed, and neither FB nor the buyers are obliged to explain any part of the process.

There is no informed consent here. It's a perfect corporate asymmetry, and very much designed that way.

Facebook probably would charge users directly if it were acceptable to do so. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the optics around providing that choice would be even worse than not providing that choice at all. People would portray this as akin to racketeering, making users cough up the dough if they don't want to be tracked. Ironically, concern over Facebook's data collection inhibits their ability to explore direct monetization methods.

Also, the value of this information isn't secret: Google and Facebook are public companies and publish their revenue numbers, no? It's not hard to divide by the number of active users to get an average value per user.

I suspect that Facebook would continue to collect all the data, but just not show ads, if someone elected to pay a monthly subscription.

True, this is what was proposed last year. Essentially analogous to YouTube Red.

Your metaphor is good, but misses the part where this art museum has either bought or forced downsizing/closure on all other competitive museums. That forces artists to choose this museum or one that it owns if they want any recognition/income from the work they do (this museum certainly isn't paying them for the work).

That would be a fair concern if it were true. But Facebook is hardly the only way to build an audience. What about Twitter, or Snapchat, or just building and hosting your own site and using Facebook as just another promotion channel?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com