The global data economy is worth trillions of dollars. Is it crazy to think users might be able to enjoy a piece of the pie?

By Xische Editorial, September 28, 2019

Around the turn of this century, the rise of internet gave way to the notion that knowledge should be free and shareable. Music, media, and news all moved to “free” models but the real breakthrough came with social media. Sharing platforms were all free for users but how did they become billion dollar companies? The answer is user data. The internet’s data economy may seem broken, with a daily deluge of headlines about data hacks and privacy violations, but it’s not beyond fixing. 

We have explored this issue in great detail over several articles but a new series in the New York Times by computer programmer and futurist Jaron Lanier has broken down the issues in exciting new ways. While we don’t agree with the entire thrust of his argument, the points that he raises deserve some attention. His bold new vision for the internet is predicated on the creation of a fresh relationship between the user and his or her data. Let’s explore. 

Lanier’s starting point is simple enough. As the world shifted to a free model for products and services on the internet, advertising became the primary vehicle for companies to make money. In order to streamline advertising models and thus increase revenue, technology companies created advanced new ways to collect as much information as possible about their users. The resulting algorithms are constantly evolving as they gather more detailed information. The crux here is that users have a largely acquiesced to this system of data collection without being aware of its scale and use. We don’t understand how valuable our data is and how we can use it in a more positive way. 

Data is the fuel that runs a vast shadow economy. The fundamental ignorance that surrounds this shadow economy deprives users of their very existence because they have no say over how their data is used, analysed, and collected. In response, Lanier created a platform designed to regain data dignity for users that is driven by the principle that users “should have the moral rights to every bit of data that exists because users exist”. 

The idea is remarkably simple. People should get paid for their data and services shouldn’t be free. That’s it. The old internet adage that free is too expensive guides Lanier’s thinking here. When a user posts a photo to a social media website or is served up a targeted ad that results in a purchase, an equitable solution would be for the user to get paid. 

It is important to note that Lanier doesn’t believe the system should be set in stone. If a user would prefer not to get paid but recieve a service such as Instagram for free, that’s fine. The critical part is that the user (as opposed to the company) gets to see the information collected about them and how it is used. Knowledge over ignorance.  Only then can the user make a decision on whether or not to receive compensation for their data. 

Who would regulate and handle the exchange of data in this new marketplace? Lanier suggests the creation of something he calls a MID, which stands for a mediator of individual data. He says that these organisations should be bigger than an individual but smaller than a nation, kind of like a union. People would need to join these organizations and they would do the heavy lifting of handling data requests, payments, and everything else. Some MIDs will pay for data in the moment, while others will provide lump sums at the end of the year. Either way, the data revenue stream could become like a pension as it will provide regular income over time. 

There are plenty of criticisms for Lanier’s approach but he is right to say that the value of data is grossly misunderstood. The trillion dollar valuations of leading technology companies are the result of the data streams these companies sell to advertisers or use to target their own products to you. These astronomical valuations are also a result of years of absent regulation in which technology companies have been able to essentially operate as they please. 

Individuals need to realise the power and value of their own data and attempt to claw back some control over it. Here Lanier is unwise not to advocate government assistance. While many governments have failed to protect user data and help users realise its value, that doesn’t mean they can’t start now. This is especially true for smaller countries such as the UAE and Estonia that have a track record in pushing through smart legislation that recognises the value of technology for companies and consumers alike. Imagine if the UAE became a MID as Lanier suggestions? Such a move would position the UAE in the avante garde of the technology ecosystem and users could rest assured that the full power of the UAE Government would protect them. 

Lanier’s proposal is bold, and we need more ideas like his to restore balance to the data economy. Our reality is one in which private companies control our data and by doing so control the future of advanced technology such as artificial intelligence. Those who create the data that is needed to properly train and drive technology forward need to be better integrated into the system. Governments can help with smart regulation to deliver bold new ideas to drive the change we need. Data dignity is fully attainable and will ultimately improve the technology ecosystem for all.