News Article

By John F. Sandy Smith

 

Facebook is in hot water over recent revelations that its top 10 most popular apps transmit user information to outside companies. At least one company put the information into a database, which it sells.

 

Facebook says that breaks its rules and must stop. But assuming this could happen again with other sites and apps, what happens now? Our habits in the aggregate will be known, which will shape our offerings and our ideas for better or worse. Most interesting of all, we are the ones putting it out there. Its utility is unquestioned, but where is all this going?

 

When we register for an “app” we give away a good bit of information about ourselves for free: name, e-mail address, credit card number and perhaps more. Also, we populate the Internet with more personal data. It’s all exciting. It’s expanding our economy, our ideas, the way we think and our culture.

 

The situation raises interesting economic questions: Should we pay or for that matter – be paid –for the content and the viral links we create?

 

Should we be paid?

 

The development of the Internet and social media may be like amateur sports at the turn of the century. When my grandfather played football at Harvard, he did it for the love of the game. I do no think he or his school made money from it.

 

Today, so-called amateurs are still the players, but instead of competing for the fun and the identity on campus, they play for a shot at turning pro and getting big money.

 

Back to the Internet, content and links are already being monetized, and our net surfing choices are tracked by our providers. This is no more nefarious than the general social interactions we have on the streets, only they are new to us. We are like those early athletes and schools at the turn of the century. We like it. We play because we can. But as to the inevitable monetization of our use, will it be consensual, fair and make economic sense? Maybe we should get paid for creating information others get paid to collect.

 

Should we pay?

 

Many of us remember when TV was free. When I was a kid we only had three or four channels. Starting in the ‘70s and ‘80s, we paid to have 50 channels, then 800 and now who knows how many. Today I have an automatic debit on my credit card for Direct TV (cable was the ‘90s), and I watch as much as I ask for. I pay for DVR, superior HD, multichannel, stereo entertainment on demand. I could even get 3D if I wanted it. Maybe next year.

 

It is the rational evolution of the business that I think is the direction of social media services. We will pay for it and think it is great, just as we pay for Internet service. We went from dial-up to more expensive DSL…now Wi-Fi…now mobile apps. There is not enough bandwidth to keep us connected and happy. Our pleasure and adoption for convenience and knowledge, sharing ideas, videos and experiences has created juggernauts like Facebook. What took 50-60 years to evolve in TV took only five to 10 years on the Internet.

 

We should not be afraid of “Big Brother” or “Big Business” any more than we should be afraid of ourselves. We should ask ourselves realistically what we are generating. An open market will determine whether we pay or get paid for something. There will be a lot of good and bad business decisions before social media turns “pro” and someone gets paid for what they create.

 

In short, some of us already pay for social media by buying apps or upgraded services such as LinkedIn premium accounts. Many pay twice by unknowingly giving our personal data to companies we never see, who make money off our contributions.

 

There are real concerns regarding privacy and intellectual property that will be worked out.

 

Only time and free market forces can answer the final question – if we are creating content and value, should not the people who are making money off our contributions be paying us? Whatever happens, it should be consensual, fair and make economic sense.