Though His Proposals Are Far-Fetched, At Least Andrew Yang is Thinking Progressively About Digital Privacy
Like many last night, I watched the Democractic debate with a close eye to see if my pet issues (data privacy, the environment) would be tabled for discussion. I went one-for-two. Though I still can’t believe Climate Change can’t get a moment in the spotlight, I admit it was fascinating to see Andrew Yang, who has amassed a cult following among a certain young, tech-savvy subset of voters, come out and speak in such depth about the issue of data privacy.
I don’t agree with the centerpiece of Yang’s policy position, the “Data Dividend”, but his fluency and deep understanding regarding what exactly is at stake in the battle for privacy rights marked, in my opinion, a milestone in presidential politics. Yang is the first candidate I’ve seen who is offering distinctly 21st-century perspectives on 21st-century problems. In a nice synergy, Yang also appeared in yesterday’s NYT “Privacy Project” newsletter to talk with Charlie Warzel in more detail about his proposals to remedy an online environment where he sees users “completely at the mercy of tech companies.”
The banner item among his prescriptions is clearly the Data Dividend, whereby Americans would receive “a slice” of the profit that companies make from leveraging their personal data. It’s an interesting idea that ties neatly to Yang’s stance on Universal Basic Income (he’s extremely in favor of it), but I don’t agree with this policy for a couple of reasons.
For starters, I think that many of the best things about the internet would be severely damaged, if not killed completely, if margins were permanently compromised by a Data Dividend. While a few of the world’s biggest tech companies might be raking in profits, independent websites, journalists, and content-makers who rely on data-driven ad targeting to eke out a profit are not. Put simply, the small sum I could make as part of Data Dividend is unlikely to match the value I derive from consuming the content that the leveraging of my personal data supports. And I think Yang hedges on the very real question of how a system of data profit repatriation could even be made to function efficiently.
I also echo Warzel’s concern about the inequality implications of letting individuals to monetize their data. We at Ethyca have already written a bit about the stratified nature of the modern internet; namely, how poorer internet users are more likely to have their personal data leveraged in exploitative ways compared to the better-off. A policy like Yang’s could only exacerbate this reality. Wealthier consumers would be much more likely to see a Data Dividend as “not worth it” and uphold their emerging set of data privacy rights, whereas the less well-off would be likely to jump at the chance to earn a small amount of additional income. But the net result, in my view, is that poorer consumers would be even more disproportionately affected by the predatory data practices that Yang has identified as a big problem, and the internet experience for “haves” and “have-nots” would diverge even more starkly.
With all that said, I applaud the sentiment behind Yang’s convictions and his willingness to think progressively about the rights of internet users. Ethyca sprung from a similar belief that companies must adhere to a higher ethical standard of data privacy than they do currently. Where we differ, I suppose, is in the belief that most companies would like to do better at data privacy, but lack the institutional knowledge and tools to do so efficiently. Whatever your stance on how we make the internet fairer and more respectful to the rights of individual users, it’s undeniable that Yang’s voice on the stage last night was a breath of fresh air.
