Turning data into a form of property and compensating people for it in cash could give Silicon Valley even more control over digital property rights, create new modes of exploitation and widen the digital divide.
That is the opinion of journalist and communication academic Joshua Adams in a piece published by OneZero.
Adams’ view on the subject is in response to Microsoft researchers Jaron Lanier and E. Glen Weyl who have proposed a new tech concept called “data dignity” in their article “A Blueprint for a Better Digital Society,” published in the Harvard Business Review
Data dignity basically means users will be compensated for their data from the huge profits tech corporations such as Google and Facebook make, and those users would be required to pay for services that require data from others.
Entrepreneur Angela Benton believes data dignity would be great for Black people and communities of color. She says it will help their influence on popular culture to rise.
Adams says that there are pitfalls to this concept that should be looked at closely.
“We need to understand how turning data into property could open a Pandora’s box of other issues we can’t foresee,” Adams wrote.
“If Facebook has to pay us for our data, it would incentivize the company to have a much firmer grasp on the data’s value without diminishing the business incentive to pay us the least amount it can reasonably get away with.”
Listen to GHOGH with Jamarlin Martin | Episode 05: Angela Benton
Angela Benton talks about starting NewMe Accelerator, whose black and brown founders have raised $42 million in venture capital. Super-early to Black tech media with BlackWeb 2.0, she discusses building her personal brand while being a single mother, battling cancer, and whether or not most of the “diversity” gains in Silicon Valley will go to privileged white women.
In Lanier and Weyl’s estimate, an average American family of four could make up to $20,000 in annual income under the data dignity plan. Christopher Jon Sprigman, a law and economics professor at New York University studying copyright, intellectual property, patenting, and trademarking, disagrees.
“The money you get is likely to be crumbs,” Sprigman said. “But in return for these crumbs, what companies will get is the rhetoric of property.”
