Upon further reflection, one of the initial issues that I have made up is that I did not consider the possibility that the goods would not be tailor-made for you, but that you might be tailor-made for the goods. Traditional economists assume that your preferences are static. This is an erroneous assumption in many situations. Your preferences can be changed, are being changed and will continue to be changed. When we allow the rich to modify your preferences, we allow them to shape who people are and, perhaps in a way that is undesirable. However, this does not solve the issue for me. A happy slave is still a slave, but at least he is happy. What matters? I do not know.

-- StevenWu - 25 Oct 2009

Re: "This is the insurmountable obstacle faced by those who try to fight for human freedom. This is what has wearied them, made them disillusioned. This is what would make even victory hollow. For what gift do you bestow on someone who does not value it? How can there be solidarity if you spurn dignity?"

This seems a bit much to me. One problem is that we seem to have presupposed that A's concept of dignity matches B's concept of dignity. The contrast between StevenWu? 's initial question and ElidedElided? 's response seems to show clearly that we do not all agree on what is an is not an insult to dignity. And for something like dignity, I don't know that someone's personal concept of dignity can be 'incorrect.'

That said, I agree with StephenClarke? 's summation: this is a difficult question. And it is so for precisely the reason just identified (among other reasons); we do not all agree on what is an insult to dignity, or on the appropriate level of what is essentially surveillance.

I would instead suggest an approach that does not categorically insist A's concept of dignity is correct, and thereby institute policies that devalue B's concept of dignity (which I believe is equally valuable to A's). A fair response to my suggestion, however, is that it is difficult to do that.

-- BrianS - 23 Oct 2009

Thanks Nikolaos, yes, I may have been a bit too rash when I gave my response (in all caps, no less), since I was excited at how artists can profit from a copyright free world. And yes you make good points about "anarchy driven advertising" or "anarchy driven distribution". Google and Facebook distribution is not an anarchic distribution model anyway, which goes back to someone having control over the distribution scheme. I'm starting to see how Google and Facebook could be the SonyBMG? of the future, in that artists have to go through Sony in order for their songs to be released into the market. But then could one not create a million Digg accounts and Digg a song all the way to the top of the "must listens"? Like there are now companies who specialize in making a youtube clip go viral who create multiple Youtube accounts to start discussions on a video, having an appealing "screen shot" serve as the "cover photo" (they say faces work best).

-- AllanOng - 23 Oct 2009

a couple of comments: a. This is indeed "a market for eyeballs" and direct marketing, depending on whether it is sucessful (i.e. in providing us with information we appreciate) or not, is either helpful or it further adds to the informtion "noise" on the web. b. wrt Allan's comment, I think I understand your argument, but still I feel more comfortable will pulling the information I need, instead of being served with the information I am supposed to like. If indeed direct marketing is going to help reduce the information noise that exists on the web today, I fear that this is too big a price, and that there should be other ways to spread information efficiently. In fact, I am sure that by considering infomation as a product in itself, then it should bear the same characteristics of other digital products, and thus benefit from both anarchic production and distribution models (services such as digg, reddit, stumbleupon etc. seem to aim at this direction). Giving up informational self-determination should not be perceived as a necessary sacrifice for more relevant information.

-- NikolaosVolanis - 23 Oct 2009

Steven, maybe better advertising might be the solution to copyright free music profitable for the singers and performers? As Professor Moglen says, the cost of producing music has declined rapidly and those who produce music might now be able to earn more than just 7% of the sales of their music, net of all expenses (sushi flown in from Tokyo). If music studios are gone, then their ability to bombard us with really good advertising to let us know about the music that we might potentially really want if you had known about it is gone as well. Then we might have to rely on Facebook and Google who really know us, to let us know these new acts that we might like.

For example, Facebook knows that we attended the Columbia Law and Opera Society Party, so we might like the new Paul Potts release? Google knows we've been searching for Backstreet Boys albums, so we might like this new boy band named BSB that looks like and sounds like the Backstreet Boys? Paul Potts and BSB can now produce their music in their own studios and reach us without having the studios marketing to us. We could get our music much more cheaply and the artists could get what is rightfully theirs.

So I guess my answer to Steven's question -- “Is the cost of giving away data regarding my personal preferences outweighed by the benefits that accrue to me as a consumer if I do?” -- is -- YES!

-- AllanOng - 23 Oct 2009

ElidedElided? , it was not "unwitting" and I hope that it is not "insurmountable." I agree with Stephen that "this is not an altogether easy question to answer." I am conflicted. I don't know how I feel about freedom or even what freedom means in this situation. I like things, particularly things tailor-made for people like me. I like pluralism and equality. I think pluralism and equality might be sacrificed by these forms of advertising.

-- StevenWu - 22 Oct 2009

Steven’s post asked a simple question: “Is the cost of giving away data regarding my personal preferences outweighed by the benefits that accrue to me as a consumer if I do?” In my mind, this is not an altogether easy question to answer.

-- StephenClarke - 22 Oct 2009

This might be very bad for liberty, but it would be weighed against the benefit of lots of wonderful products.

You have unwittingly managed to succinctly identify the quintessential trouble of the current age: freedom is not valued. At least not to any meaningful extent if it is easily superseded by "lots of wonderful products".

This is the insurmountable obstacle faced by those who try to fight for human freedom. This is what has wearied them, made them disillusioned. This is what would make even victory hollow. For what gift do you bestow on someone who does not value it? How can there be solidarity if you spurn dignity?

-- ElidedElided - 22 Oct 2009

There are so many products out there that I would love if only I knew about them. I would love to be provided with information about all of these free software alternatives. I would love to know about that new and delicious microwave popcorn. In fact, I would use a browser if it tracked my information, the websites I visit and the e-mails I wrote if it introduced me to products that I wanted to buy. Advertising would not be an annoyance, but a feature the way that it is a feature for those types of people who read the NYTimes Real Estate section, various electronic product magazines or www.fatwallet.com. Perhaps over time, producers could use this information to make even better products for me. Three hundred years ago, such good service could only be obtained through a privately commissioned artisan.

This might be a bit eerie. Perhaps it would allow Gates, Jobs and Murdoch to exert a large amount of social influence. Their politics are not my politics. This might be very bad for liberty, but it would be weighed against the benefit of lots of wonderful products.

-- StevenWu - 22 Oct 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->