Let’s be very wary of Big Tech and Governments forming Big Brother Joint Ventures

Marietje Schaake holds that “regulators should be able to assess all sectors for harms done to democracy, using specified skill sets… Empowering them to probe, investigate, discover and assess companies’ respect for democratic principles would ensure broader and more explicit accountability” “Weakened democracy is another harm caused by Big Tech”, October 15.

That sounds very reasonable but it behooves us citizen to know that about the worst thing that could happen to our democracies, is the formation of Big Brother Joint Ventures between Big Tech and politician/government bureaucracy.

In the same vein, on October 13 Chris Giles in “Rich nations draft blueprint for $100bn revolution in corporate tax” reported on the large appetite that exists when it comes to taxing “the likes of Google and Amazon”. Sir, do we really want to see the taxman having financial incentives in the exploitation of our personal data? We do not.

Now, if all advertising revenues generated by exploiting such data was shared 50-50 with us who supply the data, for instance by means of helping to fund an unconditional universal basic income, that would much better align the incentives of all participants.

But Sir, this does not mean I see no role for regulators when it comes to Big Tech. On the top of my mind I can list:

That they help guarantee we’re always receiving messages from parties that we can easily and accurately identify.

That they help us to be targeted as precisely as possible, so that our scarce attention span is not wasted in irrelevant/useless advertising/information.

That they do their utmost to keep out all those redistribution or polarization profiteers who, with their messages of hate and envy, destroy our societies.

Sir, one last question. If an author can get a copyright for a book, should we not be able to get a copyright on our preferences, that which we include in our book of life?

PS. Sir, since soon I’ve written you 3.000 letters on the topic of the incredibly mistaken bank regulations that cause so much societal harm, you must understand that the whole topic of regulations makes me nervous. 

@PerKurowski

Warning! Big Tech might be drawn into a too close too dangerous for us relation with Big Brother.

Sir, Ms. Rana Foroohar writes: “Whatever their size, the winning companies will be those that are profitable. That may sound obvious, but it hasn’t been for the past decade, as easy money has dulled investor senses.” “Activist’s critique of M&A is right” September 16.

But where did that “easy money” come from? Was it not central banks injecting immense amounts of money, and which effects were much distorted by the risk weighted bank capital requirements, which low capital requirements allowed that liquidity to multiply manifold? Has Ms. Foroohar tried to put the breaks on such easy money, or the contrary has she not been egging it on? 

And Ms. Foroohar concludes: “Meanwhile their Big Tech competitors are already being circled by regulators… Attorneys-general from 50 US states and territories in the US have launched an antitrust investigation into Google’s dominance of search and advertising, while New York is leading a probe of Facebook’s monopoly power… in Europe, the EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager… has been given a broader remit that includes digital policy.”

Should we cheer that? Absolutely not! For two reasons:

First that it might lead to Big Tech entering into too close too dangerous relation with Big Brother.

Second we, whose personal data is being exploited by Google, Facebook and similar, should be compensated long before redistribution profiteers and neo-ambulance chasers… for instance by having 50% of their ad-revenues to help fund an unconditional universal basic income.

@PerKurowski

So if the taxman/(Big Brother) is now to get a share of the revenues some Big Tech obtain exploiting our personal data… who is going to defend us citizens?

Sir, you deem “The ability of some of the world’s most profitable companies to escape paying fair levels of tax…unfair both to other businesses which do not trade internationally and to governments, which lose substantial revenue” “France leads the way on taxing tech more fairly”, July 12.

It might be unfair to us taxpaying citizens but “unfair to the government”, what on earth do you mean with that? That sounds like something statist redistribution profiteers could predicate but, frankly, the government has no natural right to any income.

And since Big Techs like Facebook and Google obtain most of their revenues by exploiting us citizens’ personal data, then if there were some real search for fairness, a tax on ad revenues from such exploitation should better be returned directly to us, perhaps by helping to fund a universal basic income.

But what ‘s the worst with these taxes is that now effectively governments will be partners with these companies in the exploitation of our data. With such incentives do you really believe our interest will be duly defended? We, who are afraid of what all our data could feed with information a Big Brother government, must now recoil in horror from that we will also be suffering an even richer and more powerful Big Brother.

PS. Sir, it is not the first time I have warned you about this.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/03/our-need-to-concern-ourselves-about-use.html

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-have-some-ideas-about-what-could.html

@PerKurowski

Let us issue shares fed with some results of our economy to all of us, and then worship these.

Sir, Rana Foroohar asking “At what point does bad corporate behavior become willful malfeasance?” writes, “Facebook is the natural culmination of 40 years of business worshipping at the altar of shareholder value.” “Facebook puts growth over governance” December 25.

Really? If all the incredible developments around Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft and similar, results from “worshipping at the altar of shareholder value” then perhaps we should issue a share to each citizens that feeds on a substantial part of profits, like those of Facebook, or taxes, like carbon taxes, and have us all worshipping these shares, instead of trusting the acts of genius politicians or bureaucrats with agendas of their own. 

Those shares, which would pay out an equal unconditional societal dividend to all of us, is by the way what a Universal Basic Income is all about. 

Of course, as usually comes with new developments, there are new and serious problems, and data privacy is one of them. Foroohar asks “ Have we reached one of those watersheds when US and European authorities are going to step up and do something about it? Let us beware, there’s no guarantee that would not be even worse. 

Foroohar says she is reminded of “bank executives who had no understanding of the risks built into their balance sheets until markets started to blow up during the 2008 financial crisis” 

I am though more reminded of regulators who allowed banks to leverage over 60 times their equity with what rated as AAA could be very dangerous to our bank system, and less that 8.3 times with what rated below BB- bankers do not like to touch with a ten feet pole. I am reminded of regulators who assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign of Greece, and thereby doomed that nation to its tragedy.

@PerKurowski

Will the many “General Data Protection Regulation” profiteers help or stand in the way of a better future for our grandchildren?

Sir, Richard Waters writes that “Europe’s new online privacy regime is a gravy train for lawyers and consultants, and it has kept IT departments and compliance officers working late for months [and] it is likely to take an onslaught…from privacy activists” “Brussels forces online reckoning by setting high bar on privacy” May 25.

That raises a question: Will that mean a better future for my grandchildren, or will it just extract value from what has been developed, making what’s to be developed more distant and expensive?

Waters also writes: “One Silicon Valley figure argues: if users were able to capitalise the future value of personal data like this that they will throw off over a lifetime, it would turn out to be one of their most valuable assets”. I have argued a similat the thing with letters sent to FT… but I have also indicated the possibility that all the web and social media added monetary value, could be used to fund a Universal Basic Income, a sort of Human Heritage Dividend.

Personally, scared of some “Big Brother Is Watching You” joint ventures between data gatherers and goverments coming into fruition, I prefer allowing development to run its full course to see where it takes us. 

Sir, I just do not feel sure enough about taking development limiting decisions on behalf of my grandchildren. Do you? 

https://teawithft.blogspot.se/2015/09/ad-blockers-do-not-allow-any.html

PS. If social media is to be fined, then have all the fines help to fund Universal Basic Income schemes. What we absolutely do not need, is to have social media (ambulance) chasers, redistribution profiteers, like a European Commission, or similar, capturing these.

@PerKurowski

So now Brussels wants to join forces with Facebook, Google and alike, in order to also extract value from our personal preferences.

Sir, Mehreen Khan, Alex Barker and Rochelle Toplensky report that “Brussels is thinking about a “levy, which is likely to be set at a rate of 3 per cent… raised against advertising revenues generated by digital companies such as Google…fees raised from users and subscribers to services such as Apple or Spotify, and income made from selling personal data to third parties… it will raise about €5bn a year.” “Brussels proposes levy on Big Tech digital revenues” March 16.

For years I have argued that we users should have right to charge something for our preferences disclosed on the web, not only because that could yield a partial funding of a Universal Basic Income scheme, but, even more importantly, because that would help to limit the bothering and the waste of our limited attention span.

But seemingly Brussels wants to hear nothing about that, they as self appointed redistribution profiteers, want in on that revenue stream.

It is just like if governments, instead of helping to rid ourselves of the fastidious robocalls selling us all kind of products and services, would now share the incentives to push those calls even more.

Sir, though I do not live in Britain, or in Europe for that sake, I was pretty sure I would not vote for a Brexit… but every day that passes, and I read about things like this, the less sure I am of that.

@PerKurowski

What if we in writing had to authorize phone companies to listen to our calls, in order to have access to phones?

Brooke Masters writes: “when I link our Amazon Echo speaker to my son’s Spotify account, I have no idea whether I am violating one of the thousands of terms and conditions he agreed to with his account. Furthermore, does that act give Amazon the right to send him advertisements based on the songs we play?” “Take ownership of the sharing economy” December 29.

She is absolutely right. The rights we seem to have to give up in order to gain access to social media and alike, though defined in small letters in thousands of unreadable pages, is one of the most undefined issues of our time.

Some questions:

Should the marginal cost for social media owners to access, and waste, so much of our limited attention span, be zero?

Should we be able to copyright our own preferences so that we at least can have something to negotiate with?

How much can we allow being distracted during working hours before our employer has the right to deduct our salaries paid?

How will such working hours distractions be accounted for in employment statistics?

How is all this free or very cheap consumption paid by used attention spans be accounted for, for instance in GNP figures?

Should social media owners be allowed to impose their own rules or should that not be subject to some kind of a special arbitration panel?

How our global differences be managed? Does a government that interferes with its citizens’ rights of access to social media have access to other web sites of other nations?

@PerKurowski

Those who because of scalability can bother us excessively should not be able to do so at a zero marginal cost

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “Scalability means that an intangible good can be enjoyed by one person without depriving another of its benefits. In an economy where scalability — frequently turbocharged by network effects — is important, some businesses will quickly become huge. These winners may also enjoy huge incumbency advantages.”, “Challenges of a disembodied economy”, November 29.

Indeed, but also look at how a zero marginal cost allows the social media to drown us in such an excessive amount of ads, fake news and irrelevant information, which so dangerously wastes our very limited attention span.

So when Wolf writes “governments must also consider how to tackle the inequalities created by intangibles, one of which (insufficiently emphasised in this book) is the rise of super-dominant companies” let me (not for the first time) suggest the following:

Charge social media, like Goggle and Apple, a very small bothering-tax, like a hundredth of a $ cent, every time they reach out to us with something that does not originate in something specifically allowed by us, like the direct messages from our friends.

That could, at the same time it builds up funding that could be used for a Universal Basic Income scheme, which helps to take the sting out of growing inequalities, reduce dramatically the bothering of us and allowing us more of that so necessary boredom we need for creativity and thoughtfulness, which we humans so specially need now when we have to interact more and more with artificial intelligent robots.

@PerKurowski

We need a contact-tax to make sure social media profiles us more adequately, and leave us some time-off to think.

Sir, Tim Harford writes: “fake news entrepreneurs have realised that it is far more profitable to invent eye-catching fables than to research and confirm the everyday truth”, “How to poke Facebook off its perch”, November 4.

The real reason for that, a bit hard to acknowledge, is that most of us (me included) find it much more amusing to read eye-catching fables than blah-blah truths.

So given our weaknesses of falling for fables; and given our de-facto limited attention span, 60 minutes times 24 hours per day; and given our need for some time-off so we do not forget how to think and reflect on what we are being fed with, we must put up some very high walls or dig some very deep moats as self-defense.

At this moment Facebook can send out a message to two billion users at basically zero marginal cost!

So one way could be forcing social media and their colleagues to pay a minuscule fee for any message sent to us that does not originate directly from our private friends; call it a contact-tax.

That would at least force Facebook to target us more carefully. “Profiling us more carefully”? That might sound awful, but being wrongly profiled should be worse… or perhaps not.

But of course the revenues of any contact-tax should not go to increase the redistribution profiteers’ franchise value, but be shared out among us all by means of a Universal Basic Income.

PS. This does not mean I give up on my right to strive for an intellectual property right, a copyright on my own preferences, in order to have something more to bargain with in this data driven world.

@PerKurowski

The numbers of ads on Facebook and Google need to be limited, and those clicking these should also be paid something.

Sir, Rana Foroohar, with respect to those services we supposedly receive free from Goggle, Facebook and similar for free, correctly writes “free is not free when you consider that we are not paying for these services in dollars, but in data, including everything from our credit card numbers to shopping records, to political choices and medical histories. How valuable is that personal data?” "Big tech makes vast gains at our expense", September 18

Indeed, more than 10 years ago I wrote you a letter in which I said: “Clearly a search engine should mostly be valued in terms of the services it offers to the searchers but in this case it is actually the searchers that become the searched and this leads to some very strange signalling effects”.

And since then I have been all over the web promoting among others the possibility that we should be able to get an intellectual property right over our own preferences, in order to have sometRhing to negotiate with… and then on how we could enter into agreements with ad-blockers that could help us exploit those IPRs.

But lately what has also come to concern me, is how our very limited attention span is being overexploited, leaving us too little time for reflection on our own realities.

Would it not be great if Google or Facebook, or any such similar social media service we get hooked on, and which has over a million members, could only send each member ten adds per day, and that these would receive 50% of any ad revenues collected as a result of having clicked on the ad?

Under no circumstances should we humans allow the marginal cost of bothering us to be zero.

I believe that could benefit all parties involved. Even Google, Facebook and alike would be less harassed by the besserwisser. Don’t you think so Sir?

@PerKurowski

New office habitats, promoting communal discussions, will force robot headhunters to consider social skills much more

Sir, John Gapper when discussing new open space offices that are intended to intensify creative communications writes that “companies should start by recognising what their employees fear losing” and among this, is obviously “privacy”. “Tech utopias drive workers to distraction” September 14, 2017

But the need for privacy is not only based on a wish of being alone but quite often much more on the wish to avoid some. In this respect it must be expected that social skills will be much more important when robots or artificial intelligence evaluates candidates in the future, because you cannot risk having absolute bores or pain-in-the-ass employees roaming around freely.

Evaluating human social skills? Now that’s a new challenge for artificial intelligence. I wonder what Watson has to say about it? Perhaps, a test-period in which all co-workers could use a point system to evaluate candidates? Would such discriminatory procedures be politically acceptable?

Sir, do your current headhunters discriminate candidates based on their social skills?

PS. How will robot recruiters treat their human ex colleagues they left without jobs? 

@PerKurowski

Our biggest problem with Internet, Google, Facebook, Twitter, is that our attention span scarcity is not duly valued

Sir, you write: “It is clear that Google, Facebook, Twitter and a few others have become an important part of the social fabric. The dissemination of fake political news around elections in the US and Europe has illustrated as much”, “New realities confront a maturing Internet” September 12.

I don’t get it. If there was any “fake political news around elections in the US and Europe” that was that Hillary and Remain were shoe-ins. And although the dissemination is important the fact is that others produced these news… mostly the political correctness clans.

But let me get to the real issue here. We humans do not have more than 7 days a week with 24 hours each with 60 minutes each and 60 seconds each. That’s all! And social media is claiming more and more of that limited attention span and there is little we can do about it, if we do not want to disconnect entirely.

Perhaps if anyone outside our circle of friends would want to send us a message, like a fake news or an irresistible click-ad, had to pay us something, then we could perhaps align the incentives better. Some could charge one cent per message, others one dollar and perhaps a Nobel Prize winner or an important politician 100 dollars for 30 seconds.

If it were so, many more would think differently about losing their time with their silly useless messages… and we would all live happier.

@PerKurowski

How many billions would Facebook lose, were there no false or outrageously misleading news that attracts ad-clicks?

Sir, I refer to your “Face up to responsibility, Facebook and friends” November 16.

Indeed, Facebook, Google and friends, must now come to terms with how to manage fake news that are there only to attract ad-clicks. Clearly since they are also in the business of ad-clicks, and probably benefit on those clicks attracted by false news, they face serious, I would hold unmanageable, conflicts of interests.

To put the burden of this responsibility on Facebook and similar, would be something akin as having the banks calculating their own risk weighted capital requirements, like naïve bank regulators allow them to do.

I believe the most expedient way to resolve this issue, in a way that benefits most of us, is not to try to establish the veracity of any individual news, but to go after those sites that make it their business to attract ad-clicks by means of false or outrageously misleading news. 3 lunacies that have attracted more than 100 clicks, should suffice for a one month suspension.

Recognizing my human weaknesses I recently twitted: “Help, I can’t resist. More than an ad-blocker, I need a blocker of stupid/outrageous only designed to be clicked on stories”

PS. As a gentle reminder, in reference to the thousands of letter I have written to you on the distortions that risk-weighted capital requirements for banks cause, to withhold important information that could be true is, for a news organization like Financial Times, basically the same as presenting fake information.

The most forceful adblocker is the limited attention span available… and here is an offer on how you can access mine

Sir, Matthew Garrahan, Hannah Kuchler and Robert Cookson write “the latest adblocking software, and programs already available on PCs and laptops, could have ruinous implications for the companies that rely on digital advertising, such as online publishers” “Adblocking threat to marketing industry grows” October 6.

I am perfectly fine with any advertiser who simply tags on a Twitter, Google or Facebook and gets paid for it even if I were bothered is put out of business. We need smart adblocking on our telephone lines too.

But the fact is that the biggest adblocker of them all, is time. There is just so many hours and minutes available per day. And so the whole adblocking technology, instead of being considered a threat, should be good news for the ad industry, since it will permit to separate the good from the bad.

And, since we on the receiving end are in fact the most important participants in all this, let me take this opportunity to once again remind the industry of my offer:

Anyone who following my personal copyrighted preferences feels he has a very special message to me, could begin by paying me a token of good faith, for instance 1US$. If so, I guarantee him the access to my fully devoted attention span, during 30 seconds. For your information my adblocker will be receiving a percentage to be agreed upon of my revenues, and so that it also has an interest in maximizing these.

This is going to be fun.

PS. I just went out to my mailbox. I will need an adblocker there too. My ordinary mail does not fit any longer.

@PerKurowski © J

If Disney though dead makes money on Mickey Mouse © why can’t Per Kurowski do the same on Per Kurowski © while alive?

Sir, let me use Tim Harford’s “Copyright and wrongs” of October 3, in order to bring to your and his attention, my own copyright wishes.

I have spent my whole life, carefully, with great love and dedication, developing interest and taste for many different things. And now, all my efforts doing so, are being vulgarly commercialized by third parties, to whoever thinks he could use it in order to tempt me to buy something or to donate to some cause.

With that information on me, they pursue me on the web and on the phone, day and night. And I can hardly escape any longer. In fact I am no longer a completely free man, I am now being trapped by my own past preferences and blocked from exploring new horizons. “Tell me what you like and I will show you what you like” is a vicious spiritual deathtrap that engulfs you more and more.

And there’s little or nothing in it for me. Oh, if only I could have a copyright on my own preferences… only until I am dead, not one day more. I swear I would not hire lawyers to extend its validity.

If that were possible, I would immediately enlist one of those many emerging ad-blockers, to make sure I was reasonably compensated for any ad that targeted me using what is included in Per Kurowski ©.

And of course, if I also had to look at those ads, I would want some compensation for using up my so scarce attention span. I have initially been thinking about a low revisable fee of US$1 per 30 second of serious attention to anything serious information they want to feed me. 

In order to stimulate the ad-blocker for maximizing my copyright and my attention span revenues, I have thought of paying it a 30 percent commission rate. Sounds reasonable eh?

@PerKurowski ©

Ad-blockers, do not allow any unsolicited ads on my mobile… unless of course I get paid good money for looking at it.

Sir, Richard Waters writes: “Slow loading times for mobile web pages — when users are paying for data… cost more than just time” and yet, while discussing the issue of ad blocking he refers to all major actors, except the users. “Who gets to block ads is flip side of who gets to decide which get through” September 10.

It is we the users who end up bearing the brunt of the costs, when having our limited and valuable attention span filled up with noises of all types. And so therefore let me repeat a request for ad-blocking services that would better serve my purpose.

I want an ad-blocking that charges anyone trying to send me an unrequested solicitation of any sort, or more than one per moth of the requested, to charge the advertiser an adjustable fee for me to look at it. Let us say initially US$1 per 30 second’s view. And on that income I would be willing to pay the ad-blocker for his services an adjustable commission, let us say initially 20%.

An alternative in which I could perhaps bypass the ad-blocker is signing up an agreement, for instance with Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple by which they share their revenues obtained from targeting me and my preferences, for instance, initially 50 percent.

Users unite! Let us maximize the returns for us of our valuable and very limited attention span. 

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2015/07/my-ideal-adblocker-besides-earning-on.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2015/03/i-want-net-40-percent-of-revenues.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2015/06/for-1us-i-will-look-for-30-seconds-with.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/06/should-not-google-and-other-public-eyes.html
http://teawithft.blogspot.ca/2007/06/in-search-of-answers-on-search-engines.html

@PerKurowski

Yahoo and Bing, if you want us to search with you, instead of with Google, make us an offer we can’t refuse.

Sir, Douglas Coupland writes: “people are perfectly free to use Yahoo or Bing yet they choose to stick with Google and then they get worried about Google having too much power – which is an unusual relationship dynamic, like an old married couple.” “WE ARE DATA-The future of machine intelligence” July 18.

Why should they change? Have Yahoo or Bing really made their case for them delivering better search results? Have we heard them sing: “I can search anything better than you… No, you can't…Yes, I can… No, you can't… Yes, I can! Yes, I can!”?

Google, Facebook, Twitter and many others, by gathering data about us, and using that data to deliver advertising to us, make money on us.

If Yahoo or Bing offered to share part of the revenues with us, and at the same time made clear what are the differences, if any, in the search results compared to Google, I guess many more of us would favor them with our questions. Make us an offer we can’t refuse!

@PerKurowski

My ideal adblocker, besides earning on what he blocks, should earn on the "quality" ($$$) of what he passes through to me.

Sir, Henry Mance refers to the opinion of Didier Truchot, president and co-founder of Ipsos in that “The idea that Facebook, Google and others should pay internet users for information does not stand up because the sums involved would not attract wealthy consumers”, “Plan to pay internet users for personal data would attract ‘just the poor’, warns Ipsos” July 1.

That depends, if the wealthy are an attractive consumer target, then they might be willing to pay more, not for the data on them but for their attention span.

For instance if non-wealthy little me could get a copyright on those personal preferences that data on me currently reveals, then I could make the following public offer: 

For 1US$ (revisable), for 30 seconds, with reasonable interest, I will look at any unsolicited ad directed to me while travelling the web.

I hereby declare that I am a great consumer and I have a good history of easily falling prey to offers on the web. That said, nothing here should be interpreted as a commitment to purchase anything or to otherwise follow or do what is suggested in any ad for which I have been paid a royalty.

And I would then contract an ad-blocker, not just for blocking purposes, but also to assure those advertisers sufficiently interested in me so as to be willing to pay good money, have access to me. Depending on the efficiency by which I am served, and the little I would get bothered by any unauthorized access to me, I will offer the ad-blocker up to 30% of any income derived by me in royalties on my copyright on my own preferences.

Of course, any really wealthy could charge much more for his attention span.

Sadly though, this does not seem very compatible with the fight against inequality championed by so many… but does that mean I should waste my time attention span for free? Yet, the wealthy could always donate their attention span usage income to the less well off.

@PerKurowski

If we get a copyright on our own personal data and preferences, then we have something to trade with.

Sir, I refer to Edward Luce’s “Big Data’s infinite harvest” May 25.

In it Luce asks “Should we charge Big Data for our personal data?” And my answer to that has for quite some time been, even to FT, that we should at least get a copyright on our own personal data, so as to have something to trade with.

I recently bought a Tuxedo shirt on the web, and since then I have been receiving many offers on Tuxedo shirts on the social media where I socialize. It crowds my computer and, in doing so, it definitely affects negatively my possibilities of going on with the rest of my own virtual life, as well as intruding on other ads trying to reach my immense purchasing power :-)

And so I believe that if all these content providers had to share some of the ad revenue they got from targeting me, with me, the owner of my own preferences, then we could put some order in the house, an order that could even benefit our Big Brothers. Frankly, I think that any advertiser would love this idea, as that would guarantee that the ad recipient looks more favorable, or even looks, at his ad… of course current advertisers would initially not like it too much… until they understand that would benefit them too.

Now on the issue of information and searches, there I might be a little bit more radical. Because there I would request that at least 50 percent of all search results provided by Google should be provided on a totally pro-bono basis. That is because it is much too important for us to know what the poorer outliers might be thinking, and because we cannot afford our information needs to be satisfied solely by information lobbyist.

But clearly all this is just in its initial stages and developing.

@PerKurowski

What about 15% of ad revenues to the content provider and the mobile operator, each one, and 70% to me?

Sir, Jonathan Ford seems to agree with “mobile operators… offering customers control over how they use their data allowance online” but is a bit suspicious of their intentions since operators also “want content providers to hand over more of their revenues from advertising”, “Mobile ad-blocking risks becoming a barrier to innovation” May 18.

There is no question that there is a lot of fighting about the value to access us consumers, and if we do not find efficient ways to block ads, we will drown in these, and de facto become incommunicado.

We users, we must fight back for our rights.

If I am going to use my limited attention span, and my data allowances, to look at ads that are directed to me only because my own preferences and lifestyle is known as a result of being on social media or otherwise surfing the web… then it is really I who should be paid.

And I would gladly pay the content providers, for providing advertisers the information they need about me, and the operators a commission for providing me a collection service. How about a generous 15 percent to each one of them? And 70 percent to me :-)​

@PerKurowski