One Finite Planet

Influence: No, they don’t want to sell your data, it’s worse.

Page Contents
Topics

Relevant Topics:

All Topics
More On This Topic

Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »

The Power struggle in Australia.

From “the biggest corruption scandal ever” in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared.

The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

Read More »

Fragile Democracy: Was Scott ‘Scomo’ Morrison autocrat of Australia?

Democracy collapses when a leader, who is able to bypass the checks and balances, uses their position to retain power.

Steps by recent leaders Scott Morrison and Australia and Donald Trump in the USA, raise questions as to whether current reliance on conventions and constitutions reliably protects democracy.

China, Russia and even North Korea are all technically democracies, and all proof of how technically being a democracy does not necessarily deliver real democracy.

Read More »

Ukraine: Putin and China, method or madness?

What if Russia and China both intended that the invasion of Ukraine would trigger global inflation and food shortages, and a potentially new financial crisis?

That Putin sees himself in the image of Peter the Great and restoring the Russian empire is no secret, and is generally portrayed as evidence that Putin has completely lost the plot. But what if there is a bigger plan involving both Russia and China that starts with triggering a global financial crisis? A dangerous game by two desperate leaders needing to bring others with them as their own economies collapse.

Read More »

Can Peter Dutton repair the democracy ‘loyal opposition’.

Democracy is under threat, and a significant part of the problem stems for the distortion of the current model of ‘opposition’. While the politics of division and polarisation of the USA Trump republicans vs Biden democrats attracts most attention on the world stage right now, what happens in Australia following the recent election which saw democracy strike back (page coming soon), has the potential to provide the world with an alternate blueprint for the role of the opposition party, which could reinvigorate democracy and spread to the US and elsewhere.

Is there an alternative to the current Republicans vs Democrats style, where ‘opposition’ is about each party demonising the other?

Read More »

Table of Contents

I recently read another comment containing the 'I don't want google getting more of my data to sell' and it reminded me of the question, 'why is your data valuable?', and the common myth that Facebook and Google etc want your data so they can sell it.

They don't want to sell your data, but the reality, is more sinister: they want the power to change your thinking.

Influence: No, they don’t want to sell your data, it’s worse.

I recently read another comment containing the 'I don't want google getting more of my data to sell' and it reminded me of the question, 'why is your data valuable?', and the common myth that Facebook and Google etc want your data so they can sell it.

They don't want to sell your data, but the reality, is more sinister: they want the power to change your thinking.

The revenue comes from the power to influence, not selling data.

Advertising is not just placing adds, it is about the advertisements being effective in influencing and persuading people. The more effective Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc can be at influencing your opinion, the more essential it is for companies to allocate a budget to spend on these platforms.

These are the richest companies in the history of humanity, and that money does not come from selling data.

Yes, anonymised, aggregate data is a revenue source, but it is not a significant one, within the heading ‘payments and fees’ in the graph.

The biggest source of revenue of Facebook, Google and other media enterprises, is from advertising, not from the sale of data.

One of the main metrics that affects stock price, and is an indicator of potential earnings, is ‘user engagement’, or the total time people spend on web sites. This is the equivalent of ‘ratings’ for a television show. The more watched the program, the more it can earn.

While Facebook’s spokespeople did not reply to our inquiries, we will offer one clarification in their defense: They do not “sell off” data, technically. They sell a service to advertisers. Looking to peddle your hemp-rope macramé vests? Facebook will happily take your money and use algorithms to serve your ads to a carefully curated subset of its users. Those with no taste perhaps. Or no arms.

popular mechanics: How Much Money Facebook Gets From Selling Your Data

No matter how you look at it, the answer is the same. The other metric that affects the stock price is revenue, and the revenue is from advertising. Advertising sounds innocent enough, and at one extreme advertising is simply providing information to consumers, but at the other extreme, it can be propaganda:  to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda.

The ultimate profit arises when a large audience can only be effectively reached through one channel, such as people getting all their news from Facebook, or buying all their products from the catalog that is Amazon or doing all their research through Google.

In these scenarios, if a company wants to promote a product, it has no choice. Either promote a product though the relevant channel, or consumer wills will not be informed, persuaded or influenced to buy the product. Paying these companies their fee to influence consumers, becomes an essential cost of business, and thus becomes a part of the cost of the product.

At the extreme, the product with highest allocation of its price being allocated to influencing consumers via platforms, becomes the most successful product, even though that means allocating the smallest percentage to providing the product itself.

The platforms can effectively ‘tax’ everything that consumers purchase, and their ability to influence can enable them to play a role in who governs, and the rules of society. It is a step beyond the 4th estate, and those running the platforms have even influenced the definition of the 5th estate to suggest the new power is held by the people on the platforms, and for the definition to ignore the greater power of the platforms themselves.

Comment?