LIVE AS IF YOU WERE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU WERE TO LIVE FOREVER. (Gandhi)
Monday, February 19, 2018
Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 6
Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee of $25 to access and use the worldwide web if search engines, social networks and websites were ad free and did not collect information about you or track your web activity?
This is a hard question for me because first and foremost I believe we should be getting all of these things for free anyways. I don't like the idea of having to pay for things we should be getting for free. However, if thats what It takes to obtain privacy I would absolutely pay 25 dollars. It brings a sense of security and relief, which people pay for anyways: home security.
Why should these services be free? Utilities are not free. Cable is not free. The fire department is not free. An ambulance cost $3,000. I can’t think of a service that is free. Why should these platforms be free? I think as a society we have become accustom to these services being “free”, when in reality we pay for them with precious information.
I think these services should be free as part of our privacy. I don't think people should be allowed to gather information on us without our consent. Its basically like stealing. Do you disagree?
Nope! When adblock/ublock + VPNs exist, it isn't worth it. Now, assuming that neither of those are an option, I would consider it if I had some vital information on my computer that I needed to protect (ex: I would do it for my work computer, but not my personal computer)
Ideally, I would pay the $25 dollars to access the world wide web so there wouldn’t be a collection of data and tracking online. But on the realistic side, as a college student, I would most likely not pay for this service at this point in time, as I benefit from the University’s internet connection. I would also like some clarification, would the service be applicable only to home servers or other places as well? For example, you might be able to pay for this service at home, but it may not be applicable if you were to go to a cafe and connect with wifi, the collection of data may be done in other places such as work, the local library, or public places that offer internet access.
Yes. I would pay the $25 and enjoy my increased privacy. What I worry about is people in lower income brackets, or who suffer the pain of unemployment who may not be able to pay that $25 bill. But so long as the question applies only to me, yes I would pay.
I am concerned with what data is collected about me and how it is used because as it is now, the practice isn't really regulated and tends to be secretive. So, my first reaction is yes, I'd at least be willing to try it. However, I have a couple hesitations in saying this. One is that in paying to be untracked I feel like I'm acknowledging that companies have the right to know where I am and what I'm doing, beyond simply accessing a web page. While $25 per month isn't outrageous, I don't feel like I should have to pay for privacy. I am OK receiving ads if I get to use a service for free, so long as that provider doesn't link into a bigger profile about me and use it to capitalize off of my browsing history, habits, and location. Another hesitation is that the logistics of how the privacy service would work aren't totally clear. I do find some technology that allows tracking to be useful, like the maps app on my phone, so long as that data isn't stored and used for extra purposes, and, as Ivana pointed out, not all ways that I access the internet would be able to recognize me as the user.
I would not be willing to. I already pay (as part of my housing bill) for access to the internet through the University of Utah. As mentioned by Ethan, there are ways to access the internet without leaving an easily traceable/trackable presence; these methods cost less than the proposed fee, and it seems like they would offer the user more control over who has access to their information. I also worry that by paying or recognizing the validity of the fee, I accept that I do not own my online presence or the data about myself. I also wonder who the money would go to. It seems that it would go to the advertising agencies or search engines, the same organizations I am trying to hide my data from in the first place. By paying the fee, I abandon the right to data about myself and implicitly agree with the assertion that as a citizen of the internet, other organizations can use and abuse any information they collect about me without restraint. It validates the practices that would lead to the creation of such a fee, and for these reasons I do not agree with paying it.
No, I would prefer not to pay a monthly $25 fee to access the internet without ads or information collection. The cost of such a payment is large, and some people may not be able to afford the cost. I don't have a problem dealing with ads in exchange for not paying a monthly payment, even if they are targeted towards me. I would prefer to know what the information obtained about me is used for, but I'd still accept information about me being stored over paying a monthly fee for private internet access. That being said, I know some people do appreciate the privacy, so having the option to take the monthly fee would be appreciated.
I personally would like the comfort of knowing information about me was not being collected while I use the web, however I would have a difficult time justifying the additional cost. I can barely afford the bare necessities at this point in my life so any extra nonessential expense just isn't feasible for me. I don't really mind the ads that much so getting rid of those wouldn't factor into my decision, and, like Ethan and Andrew stated, there are ways to get around it for much cheaper. As long as those alternatives are an option I don't think I would consider paying the $25 a month.
I do not believe that this price would be worth it for privacy. There are already ways around ads and being tracked if you look into it that are cheaper or free. Ideally this right would be free, but ads really don't bother me that much anyways so this price seems a little steep. Additionally, I would like to know who this money is going towards if I were to pay for this additional privacy? You already pay the internet company for your internet so would this just be an extra optional fee?
I would love this policy. As unrealistic as this is for a capitalistic society to enact, It’s my dream for the internet. I do see major problems with fairly distributing wealth equally between all the search engines and social media platforms. Also, who would be responsible for distributing that wealth and who does the individual pay the $25 too? This also creates an unfair advantage for people who can afford this monthly fee and creates a pay wall that will likely hurt students and impoverished individuals the most. Now in my eyes I think paying $25 is worth it but for most people it would be a gate of entry to the internet.
I think It wouldn't change as much as you truly think It would. People already look up whatever they want and have no idea that their information is being taken. So I feel like you're acting like It would be such a big impact on the world right now and I don't think It really would be. I believe a lot more people wouldn't pay for this than those who would.I do believe however, that things involving crime like how to make bombs or the dark web would be a lot bigger. Of course because they couldn't be tracked.
I would not pay $25 per month in order to access the internet without information being collected. I currently use ad blocker for free and if I do see an advertisement it is targeted to something I might be interested in which I prefer over seeing random ads. Also, considering all of the other types of information that we have discussed in class, internet search patterns seem to be least concerning in the hands of a 3rd party.
No, I wouldn't pay 25 dollars per month to access the internet. It doesn't really concern me if my internet searches are used to provide targeted ads. And sure seeing no ads would be nice, but I already don't see many ads because I too use ad blocker. In addition, an ad free internet doesn't seem realistic in that, regardless of whether or not you're paying for internet, individual websites would still host ads.
Yes...depending on what financial situation I found myself in. If it was $25 or nothing, that would seem a bit abusive and make the internet available only to those who could afford it, which would basically exclude those who cannot pay out of modern society. If it was $25 for no ads, no tracking or free for the internet as it is now, that would seem logical. AdBlock has been brought up, and I do use that, but many websites block access if AdBlock is in use, and that doesn't prevent web tracking. Also, I don't know if a $25 fee would ever be feasible or profitable to implement.
This is a hard question for me because first and foremost I believe we should be getting all of these things for free anyways. I don't like the idea of having to pay for things we should be getting for free. However, if thats what It takes to obtain privacy I would absolutely pay 25 dollars. It brings a sense of security and relief, which people pay for anyways: home security.
ReplyDeleteWhy should these services be free? Utilities are not free. Cable is not free. The fire department is not free. An ambulance cost $3,000. I can’t think of a service that is free. Why should these platforms be free? I think as a society we have become accustom to these services being “free”, when in reality we pay for them with precious information.
DeleteI think these services should be free as part of our privacy. I don't think people should be allowed to gather information on us without our consent. Its basically like stealing. Do you disagree?
DeleteI disagree. Sure, I'd love for my privacy to have absolute protection. But I, and the rest of us, all clicked "I agree."
DeleteNope! When adblock/ublock + VPNs exist, it isn't worth it. Now, assuming that neither of those are an option, I would consider it if I had some vital information on my computer that I needed to protect (ex: I would do it for my work computer, but not my personal computer)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy do you care more about your professional life privacy than your personal? This seems flipped.
DeleteIdeally, I would pay the $25 dollars to access the world wide web so there wouldn’t be a collection of data and tracking online. But on the realistic side, as a college student, I would most likely not pay for this service at this point in time, as I benefit from the University’s internet connection. I would also like some clarification, would the service be applicable only to home servers or other places as well? For example, you might be able to pay for this service at home, but it may not be applicable if you were to go to a cafe and connect with wifi, the collection of data may be done in other places such as work, the local library, or public places that offer internet access.
ReplyDeleteYes. I would pay the $25 and enjoy my increased privacy. What I worry about is people in lower income brackets, or who suffer the pain of unemployment who may not be able to pay that $25 bill. But so long as the question applies only to me, yes I would pay.
ReplyDeleteI am concerned with what data is collected about me and how it is used because as it is now, the practice isn't really regulated and tends to be secretive. So, my first reaction is yes, I'd at least be willing to try it. However, I have a couple hesitations in saying this. One is that in paying to be untracked I feel like I'm acknowledging that companies have the right to know where I am and what I'm doing, beyond simply accessing a web page. While $25 per month isn't outrageous, I don't feel like I should have to pay for privacy. I am OK receiving ads if I get to use a service for free, so long as that provider doesn't link into a bigger profile about me and use it to capitalize off of my browsing history, habits, and location. Another hesitation is that the logistics of how the privacy service would work aren't totally clear. I do find some technology that allows tracking to be useful, like the maps app on my phone, so long as that data isn't stored and used for extra purposes, and, as Ivana pointed out, not all ways that I access the internet would be able to recognize me as the user.
ReplyDeleteI would not be willing to. I already pay (as part of my housing bill) for access to the internet through the University of Utah. As mentioned by Ethan, there are ways to access the internet without leaving an easily traceable/trackable presence; these methods cost less than the proposed fee, and it seems like they would offer the user more control over who has access to their information. I also worry that by paying or recognizing the validity of the fee, I accept that I do not own my online presence or the data about myself. I also wonder who the money would go to. It seems that it would go to the advertising agencies or search engines, the same organizations I am trying to hide my data from in the first place. By paying the fee, I abandon the right to data about myself and implicitly agree with the assertion that as a citizen of the internet, other organizations can use and abuse any information they collect about me without restraint. It validates the practices that would lead to the creation of such a fee, and for these reasons I do not agree with paying it.
ReplyDeleteNo, I would prefer not to pay a monthly $25 fee to access the internet without ads or information collection. The cost of such a payment is large, and some people may not be able to afford the cost. I don't have a problem dealing with ads in exchange for not paying a monthly payment, even if they are targeted towards me. I would prefer to know what the information obtained about me is used for, but I'd still accept information about me being stored over paying a monthly fee for private internet access. That being said, I know some people do appreciate the privacy, so having the option to take the monthly fee would be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI personally would like the comfort of knowing information about me was not being collected while I use the web, however I would have a difficult time justifying the additional cost. I can barely afford the bare necessities at this point in my life so any extra nonessential expense just isn't feasible for me. I don't really mind the ads that much so getting rid of those wouldn't factor into my decision, and, like Ethan and Andrew stated, there are ways to get around it for much cheaper. As long as those alternatives are an option I don't think I would consider paying the $25 a month.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this price would be worth it for privacy. There are already ways around ads and being tracked if you look into it that are cheaper or free. Ideally this right would be free, but ads really don't bother me that much anyways so this price seems a little steep. Additionally, I would like to know who this money is going towards if I were to pay for this additional privacy? You already pay the internet company for your internet so would this just be an extra optional fee?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would love this policy. As unrealistic as this is for a capitalistic society to enact, It’s my dream for the internet. I do see major problems with fairly distributing wealth equally between all the search engines and social media platforms. Also, who would be responsible for distributing that wealth and who does the individual pay the $25 too? This also creates an unfair advantage for people who can afford this monthly fee and creates a pay wall that will likely hurt students and impoverished individuals the most. Now in my eyes I think paying $25 is worth it but for most people it would be a gate of entry to the internet.
ReplyDeleteI think It wouldn't change as much as you truly think It would. People already look up whatever they want and have no idea that their information is being taken. So I feel like you're acting like It would be such a big impact on the world right now and I don't think It really would be. I believe a lot more people wouldn't pay for this than those who would.I do believe however, that things involving crime like how to make bombs or the dark web would be a lot bigger. Of course because they couldn't be tracked.
DeleteI would not pay $25 per month in order to access the internet without information being collected. I currently use ad blocker for free and if I do see an advertisement it is targeted to something I might be interested in which I prefer over seeing random ads. Also, considering all of the other types of information that we have discussed in class, internet search patterns seem to be least concerning in the hands of a 3rd party.
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't pay 25 dollars per month to access the internet. It doesn't really concern me if my internet searches are used to provide targeted ads. And sure seeing no ads would be nice, but I already don't see many ads because I too use ad blocker. In addition, an ad free internet doesn't seem realistic in that, regardless of whether or not you're paying for internet, individual websites would still host ads.
ReplyDeleteYes...depending on what financial situation I found myself in. If it was $25 or nothing, that would seem a bit abusive and make the internet available only to those who could afford it, which would basically exclude those who cannot pay out of modern society. If it was $25 for no ads, no tracking or free for the internet as it is now, that would seem logical. AdBlock has been brought up, and I do use that, but many websites block access if AdBlock is in use, and that doesn't prevent web tracking. Also, I don't know if a $25 fee would ever be feasible or profitable to implement.
ReplyDelete