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

Imposing a marginal minuscule cost per web-ad-message could perhaps help level the playing field for the boring truths against the much more fun fake news.

Sir, Tim Harford expresses it clearly when he writes, “Fake news itself does not pose an existential threat either to democracy or the free press. What does pose such a threat is a draconian response from governments.” “There is no need to panic about fake news” January 5.

Indeed but Basic Skepticism 101 courses are still much needed. I have for decades objected to that draconian response from regulators that states: “We will make your banks safer with risk weighted capital requirements”, which they based on the loony idea that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. 

Of course that is as fake as a regulation can be. Not only does it distort the allocation of credit to the real economy but it also puts bank crises on steroids. As for now, that only guarantees especially large crisis, because of especially large exposures, to what is especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

Hartford also worries about “that there is far too little transparency over political advertising in the digital age: we don’t know who is paying for what message to be shown to whom”. I agree but one important cause for that is that there is no marginal cost to be paid by those spreading news and ads on the web.

If every ad messaging on the web forced the messenger to pay a minuscule amount per message, then we would be more carefully targeted, meaning wasting less of our limited attention span, and it would be less easy for fake-more-fun-news messengers to compete with “real” not-as-fun-news outfits, if there now is such a thing.

PS. If those revenues help fund an unconditional universal basic income, then it would be even better. 

@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

Here are some actions we should take in order to reduce the threat inequality poses to our democracies.

Sir, the discussions about growing inequality, that tend too often to concentrate on either income or wealth inequality expressed solely as a linear function of monetary terms, are dangerously simplified. Once some basic and non-basic wants have been met, loading up some extra millions does not produce the same amount of marginal benefits per dollar.

But of course for those who do not have the income to satisfy their needs and basic wants inequality matters, a lot. And so more important than worrying about inequality, is to worry about how increase the incomes of those earning less. 

Sometimes the lower incomes for some can have to do with some few other earning unjustifiably or even incorrectly too much, but most often it has little to do with that.

But the redistribution profiteers want to hear nothing of that sort. They prefer to feed envy, with for instance their so frequent mentions of how few wealthy posses more wealth than a billion or so of the poor. That of course can only increase the threat inequality signifies to our democracies that Martin Wolf lays out well in his “Inequality is a threat to our democracies” December 20.

Going from “a stable plutocracy, which manages to keep the mass of the people divided and docile” to the “emergence of a dictator, who rides to power on the back of a faux opposition to just such elites” is what sadly happened in my Venezuela.

What can we do?

When Wolf writes “The market value of the work of relatively unskilled people in high-income countries seems very unlikely to rise” we could for instance see what role risk weighted capital requirements for banks play:

In terms of equality what’s the difference between someone owning a home and someone renting a similar one?

Not much, that is unless the value of the house owned increased a lot and, as a consequence, rents also increase, sometimes more than what the renter can compensate with increased salaries.

That’s what happens when banks are allowed to hold residential mortgages against much less capital than when for instance lending to entrepreneurs; and as a consequence earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity with mortgages than when financing entrepreneurs; which mean banks will make the financing of house purchase abnormally available; which means house prices will go up… until

That is also what happens when central banks inject liquidity that benefits mainly the owner of assets; “now your house is worth more so take out a new loan against it” is not an offer that one renting will hear. 

When Wolf refers to “a desire to enjoy some degree of social harmony and the material abundance of modern economies, [being a] reasons to believe the wealthy might be prepared to share their abundance.” We should be careful of promising more than what could be obtained, because much of that abundance is not easily converted into effective purchase power or transferable income to others; for instance when some wealthy, by means of what could classify as a voluntary tax, decides to freeze on a wall, or in a storage room $450m of his purchase power, in a Leonardo Da Vinci “Salvator Mundi” how do you efficiently reverse that? Of course what’s important here is not the buyer’s paid $450 million but to where the $450million received are going.

Sir, I believe the following actions would go a long way to “ensure the survival of liberal democracy”

1. Getting rid of the distortions produced by bank regulations

2. A monthly Universal Basic Income (UBI) that is sufficient to help you get out of bed but not so large as to permit you to stay in bed. 

3. A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax that helps fund the UBI and aligns the incentives for saving the environment and reducing inequality. 

4. A special tax on profits obtained under the cover of intellectual property rights to help fund the UBI.

5. Have Facebook, Google and alike pay a minimum fee into the UBI fund for any advertising that they send to us on the web. That would also help us to make sure they do not waste so much of our very scarce attention span.

@PerKurowski

The marginal cost for others than my friends to connect and bother me on the web, should not be zero.

Sir, Rana Foroohar, with respect our lives and adventures on the web advises us “to think much more carefully about three things. First, the extent of information that we reveal and all the myriad ways in which it can be used. Second, whether the products and services we receive in exchange for our data are worth it, or whether the terms of the exchange should be reconsidered. And third, how governments may shift the rules of the new digital playing field, and what it will mean for capitalism in the 21st century.” “Tech’s fight for the upper hand on open data” October 9.

She might be right, but boy that is a big task. I get tired of even thinking I must get through all that.

My current day-to-day concerns are much more mundane, like that of being able to get the most of what I want out of the web, with my very limited attention span. Let us say out of the 180 minutes I might be on the web each day, I would be happy if I were not rudely interrupted more than 50% by distractions; like those fake-news that require so much self-discipline not to click. But the truth is that, for the time being, the robocalls I get on my cell and on my landline are much worse. These demand an immediate attention that the web does not.

There is though one aspect of this all that I have given a lot of thought; and that is on how all revenues generated by exploiting our own preferences should be distributed.

If I, as the owner of the intellectual property rights on my own preferences, cannot be duly paid a royalty for these, at least I do not want others to be able to exploit them for their own causes.

If 50% of all web revenues went to help fund a Universal Basic Income, perhaps that could be an acceptable compromise for me.

But back to our limited attention span, the major problem is that the marginal bothering cost for social media or other service providers to connect with us is zero. If each connection that does not originate from someone directly authorized by us is taxed with US$ one cent… then I am sure those connecting would at least think a bit more before bothering me.

And, of course, those taxes should also help feed a Universal Basic Income. The last thing we need is social media and redistribution profiteers teaming up in order to engage in mutually profitable crony statism. 

@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

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

If those with good “3bn biochemical letters of human genome” ask insurance companies for rebates, what about the bad?

Sir, in screaming silence I read what Clive Cookson writes about “technologies advancing at extraordinary speed to make possible ultra-precise manipulation of the genome” “Engineered evolution takes another step forward” January 18.

In March 2000, after reading “the government plans to allow insurance companies to use DNA testing to assess whether people are at risk of inheriting serious illness and should pay higher premiums”, I wrote an Op-Ed titled “Human genetics made inhuman”.

In it I expressed many of the concerns about the discriminatory implications of DNA mapping and expressed the view that something needed to be done before any release of DNA information caused irreversible damage. I there suggested “that all insurance companies design a plan which obligates them to issue policies for all of those who undertake a genetic examination. This policy should cover the negative impact and consequence that could arise from anyone getting access to such information.”

But I also admitted: “I know this is only a Band-Aid, but what else can I do? I am not among those that resign and lie down to cry, even though this matter actually would justify just that.”

Now, 17 years later, I have no idea on whether something, anything, has been done to save humans from a release of the information contained in a “DNA sequencing, which reads out all 3bn biochemical letters of an individual human genome [and which can be done] in a few hours for less than $1,000”.

Sir, I ask, if with only $1,000 investment, I can get a test testifying I have a good DNA, and which perhaps allows me to for instance negotiate special favored rates with an insurance company, how will that affect those whose tests indicate a not so good or even a very risky DNA, something that in fact could include me or the ones I love?

Environmental challenges, 1st class robots, 3rd class robots, intelligent artificial intelligence, dumb artificial intelligence, terrorism, nuclear weapons, fast and cheap DNA testing, crazy bank regulators, structural unemployment… and the list of challenges goes on and on. How will a world that spends so much of its very scarce attention span glued to so very attractive juicy fake/irrelevant news stories cope?

@PerKurowski

Caring more about us, the targets, would go a long way to improve advertising efficiency on the web, and reduce fraud.

Sir, John Gapper describes some tip of icebergs in the word of online advertising “Regulators are failing to block fraudulent ads”, February 3.

But I also assume that those paying for the ads do not pay, or stop the advertising, if the ads fail to translate into profits.

We, the targets, we used to be hit with some few advertising bullets while reading a paper, looking at TV or listening to radio… now, on the web, more and more we are hit with thousand of ad pellets, which give very little consideration to the physical limits of our attention span. If the computer has a malware that keeps it reading ads while I sleep I don’t care… but when I sit there and try to use the web for its original purposes the ads are really getting into my way and into my nerves.

What could be done about it? I have suggested the advertisers, with the help of ad-blockers, take contact directly with us the targets. I am sure we could work something out. I my case I have offered to hire out my very scarce attention span for 30 seconds against the low price of US$ 1… initially!

@PerKurowski ©

Those willing to cut a deal with the real owners of limited attention spans for ads, will come out ahead.

Sir, I refer to Jeevan Vasagar and Robert Cookson’s report “Axel Springer winning fight against ad-blockers” November 4,

And on Axel Springer’s website I found that: “Axel Springer finds the business model of ad-blocker services to be unlawful. This applies to both the blocking of advertising on publishing websites as well as to the ’whitelisting’ service, which publishers can pay for to free themselves of the advertising block, which is an extortionate approach according to Axel Springer.”

And I was left wondering… why is it unlawful to block the way into my limited attention span and not to enter into it?

So now, if we want to have access to BILD we have to accept the ads, or subscribe to it paying 2.99 Euros per month. Hold it there; is not my limited attention span worth anything?

I have figured out that I have about room for 64 30-second ads per week which makes about 256 per month. And I have decided that my using up that limited attention span should be worth about 1 Euro for any 30-second ad to me; on which I would accept to pay a 30 percent commission for managing my preferences.

And so now my calculations are: First is access to BILD worth 3 Euros per month to me, and, if so, should I pay BILD in cash, or with 3 30-seconds attention spans?

But what if BILD cheats and wants to pump more pieces of attention spans out of me?

And so here’s my proposal. BILD if you have an article I am interested in, and I read it, then I will look, with interest, at any 30 second ad you send me. And, if you sell that to a client who is sufficiently interested in me to pay me 1 Euro, you can keep 30 percent of it, in order to split it any which way you want between yourself and the writer of that article.

And then of course I am going to rank how well BILD is my interests and my need of intellectual diversity.

Current business model are based on the assumptions that we the recipients of ads have unlimited attention span and that is simply not true… you should look at my inbox even after the span filter has done its job.

I foresee throat-cutting competition for attention spans for ads, and those cutting a deal with the owners of it will come out ahead.

And if the BILDs of the world do not want to make that kind of deal with us ad viewers, I am sure many ad-blockers– duly authorized by us – would love to do so.

And Sir, any good results BILD is reporting now, are as pyrrhic as can be.

@PerKurowski ©

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

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

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