I know this isn’t strictly piracy related, I apologise, but I think it is tangentally related in that piracy protects you from data theft by avoiding the services the biggest thieves operate. Also, I feel like people here might be very interested in this take.

Apparently, the “legal” data brokerage industry was worth $319 billion in 2021, and is predicted to be worth $545 billion in 2028.[1]

Meanwhile, in 2021 there were only 7.9 billion people in the world[2] - many of whom do not have internet access or have very little data being traded. If we generously assume 6 billion people have equal volumes of data being traded, that means each person’s data is worth $53.17 per year on the market.

Data is effectively stolen from people. We do not get anything in return for it. We may be offered access to a website free of charge, but that is a separate transaction - it is not appropriate for another transaction to be hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. When you buy insurance, the key terms have to be front and centre - you pay x, you get y service. Not “You can have y for free!!! (But also you give us x for free.)” You’re supposed to be able to compare the value of the things being traded.

Bearing in mind that this is merely data brokerage, not actual processing or deriving any value from the data, a simple profit margin can be applied. They simply collect the data - easily and at low cost through automated processes - and then sell it. If businesses still took a very generous 30% profit (rather than a ludicrous infinite and pure profit) then the value of an average person’s data that they are owed is around $40 per year.


To run the other numbers to check, the global population in 2028 is predicted to be 8.4 billion - a growth of 6.329%. So our 6 billion population would become 6.38 billion, and with the $545 billion market value an individual’s data would be worth $85.43 on the market, or $65.71 to the individual. The value of user data is predicted to rise.

Obviously that 6 billion population figure I used is an approximation - a blind one at that. To give a worst case valuation for 2021, if we assume all 7.9 billion people equally have data being traded, then an individual’s data is worth $40.38 on the market, and $31.06 to the user. These are the minimum values, averaged evenly across the entire global population.


When Google and Facebook started out, data had very little value - there was no market for it. Thus it seemed reasonable to let them just take it, even if maybe it could be worth something. The service they offered was new and novel, a shiny new toy for everyone to play with. They then used this data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. Now, even big players like Microsoft have joined in, in spite of the fact that their main products are paid products.

One form of bank fraud is where the criminal takes pennies out of multiple accounts, the idea being that people won’t notice such a small debit, and banks might write it off as some kind of error. This has been legislated against and proven illegal - yet these assholes take $40 each from everyone and get away with it!


  1. https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/global-data-broker-market Edit: lmao we broke it https://web.archive.org/web/20240107042301/https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/global-data-broker-market …or did they maybe take it down?? /tinfoil Edit2: it’s back up lol ↩︎

  2. https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2021/ ↩︎

  • acchariya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Disclosure: I’m affiliated with this company.

    There’s a platform where you can add personal data in the form of questionnaires, documents, and integrations that pull profile data from social media, then allows you to sell the data to buyers at your discretion. The platform does not own your data, does not access it, and simply acts as a broker directly between you and the buyer. Not a ton of activity on it at the moment, but it’s picking up as clients shift spending from big tech to pay users for their own acquisition.

    https://tartle.co

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Glad to see there’s someone trying to make the process more legitimate.

      However, I feel like the better solution is to require that all raw data be publicly available - no one pays for it, but everyone can access it. Then, when people process the data, they can keep their methods and results secret. I think this is perhaps a more practical solution as the cat is already out of the bag, you’re not going to get the likes of Facebook paying users appropriately.

      • acchariya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You are right about not getting Facebook to pay for the data, but each time a company pays you $2 to be referred to their site, that’s $2 Facebook didn’t receive. Anything you earn on TARTLE comes directly out of the purse of big tech.

  • leanleft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    this service claims:

    "Ad based search engines make almost $300 a year off their users.

    Google generated $76 billion in US ad revenue in 2023. Google had 274 million unique visitors in the US as of February 2023.

    To estimate the revenue per user, we can divide the 2023 US ad revenue by the 2023 number of users: $76 billion / 274 million = $277 revenue per user in the US or $23 USD per month, on average! That means there is someone, somewhere, a third party and a complete stranger, an advertiser, paying $23 per month for your searches."

    https://help.kagi.com/kagi/why-kagi/why-pay-for-search.html

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    $53 is a lot less than I would have expected honestly. But I guess that’s a mean average figure. It’s going to be practically worthless for poorer people. And since wealth is not evenly distributed, and since personal data of people with disposable income is worth a lot more, the average internet user’s data is probably worth a lot more.

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sure, it’s not the hundreds of dollars I’d estimated previously. In the past I’ve said “the data brokerage industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry” and come up with figures ranging from $100-$700 per year owed to the user.

      However, it should be said that this is just data brokerage. Not all businesses sell the data they collect, instead they keep it proprietary and use it themselves. Google, for example, sells advertising, not user data.

      So I think my estimations here have been very conservative overall, and the real value may well be much higher.

      Also, it’s not just about it being a small amount from an individual, it’s the fact that they’re robbing everyone blind that really gets my wick. No one really understands the value of user data, not intuitively, and the whole transaction is done in a deceptive manner to abuse this fact.

  • TWeaK@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Also, I’m really happy I finally found a genuine excuse to show off Lemmy’s citation feature lol

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes I’ve noticed that as well, the links have always been borked. Doubt it’ll get fixed any time soon, but at least the ground work is there and it makes it ever so slightly easier to make the formatting.

  • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    To buy weed, my state requires folks hand over their ID, and the shop records the person’s info to make sure they’re not selling to a minor.
    For someone that doesn’t want their info anywhere, I’m mildly annoyed by this, but I understand it.

    My weed shop had a loyalty program where (because obviously they have to track your purchases because of state law), you got points based on how much you spent. It was automatic. No opting in or out or whatever. They had to collect the data, and figured they’d reward their customers for coming back.

    Last week, they told me they were discontinuing the existing rewards program, and spinning up a new one that customers have to sign up for.
    To me, that means they’re not just handling the data they’re required to maintain in house, but need me to opt in to something or otherwise waive my right to privacy in some fashion. I scanned the QR code they referenced and the page (off-site from their actual website) wouldn’t even load unless I disabled tracking protection/ad-blocking.
    I closed the tab and am now wondering if I need a different weed shop.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I closed the tab and am now wondering if I need a different weed shop.

      The answer is yes. Make sure to also let management know exactly why so they know how bad they fucked up

    • wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You need to hand a twenty to a dude on the corner. That’s privacy. We used to have it.