• aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    I see what you’re getting at, but that’s a flawed analogy.

    Firstly, public roads are paid for collectively through taxes but everyone can benefit from them, not just large multinational corporations. That’s not currently how user data is used in the context we are discussing, since the users themselves do not benefit materially from the data they produce.

    A more accurate use of a road analogy would be to say that, at the moment, the users build the roads themselves (generate their data), and the private companies say to the users “Thanks very much for building the roads, we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit.”

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.

      Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.

      we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."

      I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?