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

Who is going to fact check the political ads on social media fact checkers? Big Brothers?

Sir, you opine: “The spread of political advertising on social media requires companies fact-check political ads in collaboration with trusted, independent organizations”, “Online political ads are in urgent need of regulation” November 1.

“Trusted, independent organizations”, does that not ring a bell with respect to trusting the human fallible credit rating agencies with so much power to decide on the risk weighted bank capital requirements?

I am reminded of an Op-ed I wrote in 1998 in which I argued, “In many cases even trying to regulate banks runs the risk of giving the impression that by means of strict regulations, the risks have disappeared” 

And in it I opined “in matters of financial regulations, the most honest, logical and efficient is simply alert to alert about the risks and allow the market, by assigning prices for these, to develop its own paths”

Sir, if I was concerned then, how much more concerned should I not be with the possibility of social media, fact checkers and Big Brothers entering joint ventures. 

So no Sir! Much better is a continuous reminder that: “Nothing advertised here has been fact checked and so even though it sounds interesting and correct, it is quite possible that it is all fake, even an outright shameful lye”

@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

Instead of looking out for fake news, which is a mission impossible, go after what motivates and facilitates it.

Pilita Clark writes that “Britain’s health secretary, Matt Hancock, later warned social media companies could be banned if they failed to remove harmful content [and] ministers were looking at new laws to force social media companies to take down false information about vaccines spread by ‘anti-vaxxers’”. “Facebook is not our friend, no matter what their adverts say” March 29.

Ok, they identified one fake-news. Congratulations! 

But let me assure you that for each one of these you are able to track down, at least one hundred new ones will be spreading like wildfire.

To stop fake news, as well as to stop that odious messaging of hate and envy by polarization and redistribution profiteers, you have to be able to identify who is making money on it, and make it harder for them to make money on it.

Two things are needed for that. First to set up a parallel social media in which only duly identified individuals can participate, so that they could be individually shamed; and then place a minimum minimorum access fee on each social media message, so that they can not operate with a zero marginal cost.

Where should that access fee go? Clearly to us citizens whose data is being exploited and not to some other redistribution profiteers, and much less to some on the web-ambulance-chasers.

Pilita Clark also refers to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Rightly so, we need to read and reread it so as to fully understand that the worst that could happen to us citizens, would be these mega social media enterprises teaming up with Big Brothers here and there.

@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

Give us a “Family and Friends' Facebook” and a “No Man’s Land Facebook”

Sir, John Thornhill “Several proposals for “fixing” Facebook are flying around; none looks wholly convincing. Maybe Financial Times readers have some smarter ideas.” “How to fix Facebook” August 6. Here follows a response to that challenge:

If I use Facebook strictly with my friends and families, fake news, or obscene behavior would not be a major issue, since I have quite a clear idea who in my circle would want to engage with that, and I have therefore my own powers to contain it.

The problem is when suddenly a third unknown, or by me uninvited party gets access to my circle, in order to peddle us a news or an opinion, in which he has an interest and quite likely we don’t.

So one alternative would be to have a family and friend Facebook, in which the only thing third parties could do was to advertise products and services, not post opinions, nor of course try to sell us political pamphlets. Would I be happy with such a Facebook? If the number of those ads, in consideration to my limited attention span, were limited to two or three per hour why wouldn’t I? 

Then there could be an open access Facebook to which any person, not a family and friends circle, can subscribe to and that would resemble the current Facebook. A sort of “Throw anything you want at us” Facebook.When on it, we would all be quite clear with that we will be fed fake news, and odiously polarizing opinions, and that in all essence we are on our own, running under fire, in no mans land. 

Would such split hurt Facebook’s profits? Not necessarily but, if so, it would also reduce the general risks for Facebook (and alike) to be subject to fines, since it would be much harder to hold it responsible for any misbehaviors occurring in the No-Mans Land’s Facebook. 

That said, to also diminish the amount of “odiously polarizing opinions”, something that behooves us all, Facebook should try developing algorithms that, using the whole web, tries to establish and then keep out, those who are looking mostly for some monetary enrichment. That could get about half of the polarization profiteers, the other half being of course much harder to identify, since they are mostly looking for political enrichment.

Talking with a knowledgeable friend he expressed curiosity about how much Facebook used linguistic experts when trying to identify fake-news or other bad behavior. He’s got a good point, though my first reaction was, in this world with constant changes in how we express ourselves, how on earth do we identify a qualified linguistic expert? And if Facebook is able to identify a qualified and diversified linguistic expert team, with perhaps Oxford professors, hip-hoppers and young street wise kids, how do you get them to work together and keep them united? 

And how do you in general avoid fake-news experts being gamed? Perhaps randomly picking fake news identifiers out of a large universe of volunteers, and changing these every couple of minutes, paying them well for their few moments of dedication could be an alternative. An Uber for Fake-News hunting? Sir, it’s a hard knock web!

PS: Sir, what do you think Facebook’s experts would say about the Basel Committee’s news: “That which is perceived risky, is more dangerous to our banks than that which is perceived safe”? True or Fake? 

@PerKurowski

When it comes to recklessness, the whizz-kids are small fry when compared to current bank regulators

Sir, Gillian Tett, referring to “the 2008 financial crisis writes: “Regulators were largely toothless because the whizz kids were creating financial instruments that straddled national borders, regulatory silos and outdated laws” “Cambridge Analytica scandal echoes the financial crisis” July 13.

Hold it there! If the regulators were “toothless”, what on earth were they doing regulating in the first place?

And, really, how much damage could reckless whizz kids have caused, if regulators had not, for instance allowed banks to leverage their capital with securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector, 62.5 times, only because a human fallible credit rating agency had assigned that instrument an AAA to AA rating?

And what whizz kids have ever been involved with something as reckless as when regulators assigned a risk weight of 0% to sovereigns like Greece?

If we take this all to the issue of misuse of data, what are we to say about regulators who seem to keep a low profile on the fact that whatever data Cambridge Analytica laid there hands on, that was nothing when compared to the so much more extensive data social media, like Facebook, already possess. Could these regulators, in a Basel Committee for Data Supervision, really be crafting adequate policy responses that will not have serious “unexpected” consequences?

What if that data had now to be shared with governments, would that not make any autocrats’ “Big-Brother is Watching You” wet dreams come true?

@PerKurowski

When analyzing labor markets, do not ignore the time being wasted/used consuming distractions.

Sir, (as usual) I read with much interest Sarah O’Connor’s article on “labour shortages being reported gloomily all over the developed world” “Labour scarcity helps heal workers’ deep financial scars” July 11.

I think she forgot to include in her analysis the fact that more and more time is used during working hours in distractions. On a recent visit to a major shop in the Washington area, 8 out of the 11 attendances I saw were busy with some type of activity on their i-phones, and I seriously suspect they were not just checking inventories.

Less hours effectively worked, should translate not only in labor shortages but also into higher real salaries. And I also frequently ask myself what would our economic data be telling if treated the distractions as consumption. Could productivity have been increasing fabulously without us noticing it?

@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

Our need to concern ourselves about the use of our personal data goes much beyond what’s in the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica entanglement

Sir, I refer to Hannah Kuchler’s “The anti-social network” March 24 and all other reports that will pop up on the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica entanglement.

For a starter, why should we be so concerned with Facebook losing control of data to third-party developers, when Facebook has all that data and even more on us, and on which we have handed over the control to Facebook?

Then, if there is something that should be of the greatest concern to us citizens, that is the possibility of Facebook and similar teaming up with governments in “Big Brother is watching you, and makes profits on you all” joint ventures.

In fact that seems already to be happening as Brussels wants in on the ad-revenues.

I pray there are no secret negotiations going on between Venezuela’s Maduro and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. I mean if Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein could finance such an odious human rights violating regime, without any important social sanctioning of him, why should not Zuckerberg thinks about selling data to it too?

Sir, it is clear that we have need for independent entities such as central banks, then an ironclad independency of an Agency Supervising Our Personal Data Usage, seems to me to be the mother of the needs for independency.

Down with all "Big Brothers are watching you". And it does not matter whether these are Public, Private or PPPs (Public Private Partnerships)!

Of course the usage of our data supervisory agency must be managed by wise and common sense possessing individuals and not by dummies like those of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision who are so not only convinced that what is perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system than what is perceived as safe, but also so easily manipulated by the banks.

PS. I forgot the first tweet I made on this, namely: How do we know this is not all fake news created in order to provide some polarization profiteers with new marketing material?

PS. Sir, I could be adding new comments to this post… so you might want to come back now and again to have a look at what’s in it.

PS. We must keep the ambulance chasers and the redistribution profiteers out of the business of fining the social media. All fines should go to fund a citizen’s Universal Basic Income

@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

Edward Luce, what do you mean, is Mark Zuckerberg not paying the taxes he should pay, or is he just no taxed enough?

Sir, I come from a nation, Venezuela, where those in power have wasted hundreds of times more fiscal revenues than the amount of taxes citizens might have evaded. So I am no fan of the redistribution profiteers.

Edward Luce writes: “America’s new economy elites tend to cloak their self-interest in righteous language. Talking about values has the collateral benefit of avoiding talking about wealth. If the rich are giving their money away to good causes, such as inner city schools and research into diseases, we should not dwell on taxes. Mr Zuckerberg is not funding any private wars in Africa. He is a good person. The fact that his company pays barely any tax is therefore irrelevant.” “The Zuckerberg delusion” November 16.

What does Luce mean? Is Zuckerberg not paying the taxes he should pay or is he not taxed sufficiently. If the first Zuckerberg should be fined or even go to jail, if the second Luce is close to being defamatory and should suffer some consequences. 

And Luce also holds “The next time Mr Zuckerberg wants to showcase Facebook, he should invest some of his money in an actual place.”

What on earth does Luce mean? That Zuckerberg does not have his money invested in an actual place? That Zuckerberg keeps his wealth all in cash stashed away under his mattress?

I am clearly against how much rents are derived from monopolistic positions, and would of course like to see that kind of rent capturing to be diminished. But I also believe that once wealth has been created, and that wealth has been allocated to different assets, one should not come to the conclusion that redistributing these would actually result in something better.

It is so typical for wealth-redistributors to suggest, like Luce does, that Zuckerberg would do better funding “a newspaper to make up for social media’s destruction of local journalism” without given a single thought to what would then have to be defunded.

What is most conspicuously absent in the aggressive let’s redistribute the wealthiest wealth proposals, is an explanation of how that is done and of what that implies.

For instance, let us assume Mr Zuckerberg has a $200 million dollar Picasso hanging on the wall. How do you convert that painting into food, health services, education or money for the poor, without having to find another wealthy buyer of that Picasso?

And, if you did cash in the $200 million, how much would reach the less wealthy and how much would just enrich the redistribution profiteers… perhaps making them the neo-wealthy?

The fact is that if Zuckerberg had a $200 million dollar Picasso he has, in a sort of voluntary tax, frozen alternative purchasing capacity on his wall. In this case leading for art to be seen as a good investment, and most probably down the line causing some artists down to get some more income for their art. 

But Sir you would also probably agree with Luce in that journalists are worthier than painters. And I don’t hold that against you… because that’s life. Let anyone not wanting to redistribute something more to himself, cash if you are poor and goodwill if you are Zuckerberg, throw the first stone.

PS. I am an ardent defender of a Universal Basic Income because I find that to be the most efficient way to finance, among others, the creation of decent and worthy unemployments. But that redistribution method also needs to be clear on the implications of what is being redistributed. How much would exist in the Frenchman Thomas Piketty’s Paris’ Museum of Louvre, had it not had been for the existence of the odiously wealthy?

@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

If today Luther protested the high priests in the Basel Committee, where would he nail his Theses? Twitter, Facebook?

Sir, Kate Maltby writes: “Luther… backed by the painstaking detail of a scholar, took an intellectual stand against the most powerful forces of his day. But Lutheranism ushered in an age in which debates were won by those who read the sources and rejected received interpretations.” “What did Luther ever do for us? Less than we like to think” October 31, 2017

As you know I have obsessively, since more than a decade, with more than 2.600 letters, been nailing to FT my arguments against the maddening stupid bank regulations the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision has decreed.

These regulations not only distort the allocation of credit to the real economy (millions of entrepreneurs have not gotten their opportunity to a bank credit only because of these regulations); but also because in terms of stability, the only thing it promotes is that when a big crisis happens, banks will stand there with especially little capital (as the 20% risk weight of dangerous AAA rated, and the 150% for the innocuous below BB- rated evidences). 

So I want to take this opportunity today, when “five hundred years ago, on October 31 1517, Martin Luther took up a hammer and nailed his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg” to ask you, where would Martin Luther nail his Theses today? Not in FT…perhaps in Twitter or ​Facebook?

An aide-mémoire

@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

Politifact, Snopes, AFP, BFMTV, L’Express, Le Monde and Correctiv. Please check this fact for us! Pro-bono of course.

Sir, Madhumita Murgia reports “Facebook plans to pay fact-checkers to monitor news on its platforms in response to sustained criticism that it has not been doing enough to crack down on fake stories... So far, it has formed partnerships with third parties such as Politifact, Snopes, AFP, BFMTV, L’Express, Le Monde and Correctiv. “Facebook fights back against fake news” April 7.

Do I have a fact checking for these organizations to do? I mean pro bono, I am no Facebook.

Current bank regulators, the Basel Committee, in order to set the capital requirements for banks, so that we can all feel calm about the stability of our banking system, have for instance risk weighted those rated AAA to AA with 20%, and those rated below BB- with 150%.

I am absolutely sure no bank crisis has detonated because of major bank exposures to something that was perceived ex ante as risky so as to merit something like a below BB- rating. I am absolutely sure that if a bank crisis has been caused by something connected to the perception of risks, that has been because of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as very safe, like a AAA rated borrower, but that ex post turned out to be very risky.

Could you check that fact for us? Risk-weighing this way means that what is rated AAA has now more and cheaper access to bank credit than was the norm in the absence of such regulations; and that what is rated below BB- has now less and more expensive access to bank credit than usual. And that makes no sense.

In terms of how Mark Twain put it, this signifies that the banker is now even more willing than usual to lend you the umbrella when the sun shines, and even faster than usual to want to take that umbrella back as soon as it looks it could rain.

While checking these facts, if you happen to meet a bank regulator, I would appreciate it if you could try to get some answers from him on the questions I link to below. Though I have tried for years, I have had no such luck.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2016/12/must-one-go-on-hunger-strike-to-have.html

@PerKurowski