LIVE AS IF YOU WERE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU WERE TO LIVE FOREVER (GANDHI)
Monday, February 20, 2017
QUESTION 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?
I think that if this were not a long-term solution, I would be willing to do this. If the use of the internet had been introduced to me like this, I would be more willing. If this policy were introduced now and was to be used indeterminately, I would be frustrated about the amount of money that I would be spending over the course of my life for this. This is only because this was not an expense I had to consider before. I would feel like something was being taken away from me. It's a pretty childish response, a response that assumes what one is given belongs to them and they have a right to it for the rest of their lives. I feel like a lot of people would be proud about it.
I agree with Kali. I would be willing to do this as well, but because I know what it is like for the internet to be free, it makes it not as effective. A lot of people would be angry if they suddenly had to pay for access to the internet. However, most people have to pay for wifi to be connected to their homes, so maybe if that was put onto my wifi bill I might be more willing to do it. I also think that the original idea for the internet was a place where people from all over the world, of all different backgrounds, can connect. By implementing a cost to internet, it then excludes more people than it did before. Many websites or applications do this on their own. For example, Spotify lets you stream music for free with ads, you can pay them $5-10 a month to get rid of the ads. I like that this way better than putting a price on the internet because it gives people the right to choose what they want, instead of giving them an "all or nothing" kind of deal.
I think I would probably be willing to do this. If I didn't choose to pay for this, I think it would be nice to at least have the option available. I pay for services to keep my computer safe from things like viruses when I am using the internet, so this would seem to fall under the same sort of category. People pay extra to get things like apps ad free, so I think that there would probably be other people besides me who would at least consider paying the $25. There are ad blocking services you can get for free, but I think it would be nice to also have your privacy protected from web activity tracking.
No. While it would be nice to search the web without any sort of tracking, I wouldn't be willing to pay $300 a year to do it. I agree with the other comments so far that there probably would be people willing to upgrade to an "ad-free" Internet, but I personally don't think it's worth it. I'm so used to the ads online that I almost don't see them, and if my name gets put on some company's email list, it only takes a few clicks to remove it.
While I understand the comment that $300 a year seems like a lot, if it were the only option I think most people would be willing to pay. As an example of an extension to this, my family could save most of $100 per month if we didn't want internet access on our phones, and we have a very small data plan. Most people pay far more, so are paying more than $25/month for convenient access, not just access overall.
Twenty-five dollars per month for this type of service is a bit much in the long run and could possibly be economically detrimental to the average consumer. However, since it would prevent my data from being utilized in various ways that I did not knowingly consent to, it might just be worth it. The whole "I have nothing to hide" fallacy comes into play here; no, I don't have any deep, dark secrets that could possibly be revealed in this way, but I also don't want everything about my life and day-to-day habits analyzed and used for profit.
I would absolutely be willing to pay the $25 per month. These companies provide a valuable service which I don't mind paying for. However, I would be very worried about blocking people off who couldn't pay, because the Web only really works because everyone has the ability to share. If there were some ad-supported model which ensures everyone has fair access, that would be a good compromise in my opinion.
In short, nope. But this is honestly one of the more interesting questions to think about. As much as we say in class that the internet ought to be free of tracking and that we ought to be able to expect a good deal of privacy in our actions online, what we're basically saying is "I value my privacy, but not more than I value $25 a month." Which, itself is an understandable argument. I suppose I would be a lot more willing to pay $5 a month. Which makes me wonder, in terms of USD, what is my privacy online worth? In my privacy philosophy statement, I argued that privacy itself is like a currency, in that we essentially "pay" for services and applications with our personal information. All this said, I'd still really have a hard time parting with $25 a month.
No. I would honestly rather save the money and have ads and some tracking. While I am not completely comfortable with being tracked, it is not something I'd necessarily pay to get rid of. Would the fee be in addition to Internet provider service (pay per router), or would it be an account (pay per user) which allows you to access certain websites without ads? Also, would it be optional to pay for no ads but have the choice to leave ads?
Yes, but it's a matter of price for me. The way I see it, it's equivalent to a company coming out with a VPN that removes all ads and prevents search engines and other online companies from tracking you or collecting your information. That product is certainly valuable, but I wouldn't pay $25/month for that. I currently pay $30/year for a VPN that removes ads and prevents IP-based tracking. A jump from $30/year to $300/year for this proposed service is too great, in my opinion.
Kali and Hannah raise a good point as well: I would be concerned that this is implemented as the only way to access the Internet. As long as it is available as an option, alongside regular free access, I like the idea, if not the price.
No, I do not feel that the that the information that is collected from my internet use is a huge violation of my privacy. Mostly because most of the information is aggregated and used with everyone else's information. It is not as if these companies are tracking only my movements online in order to stalk me. If I did feel that the collection of my data was privacy invasive I would stop using the service instead of paying the fee.
Yes I would, especially if it was the only way to access the services. The safety of mind is easily worth $25 a month. If there were no shady loopholes the companies could use, then removing their tracking will remove basically all the data collected on me. This also benefits me since I do not like ads and do not appreciate targeted ads trying to influence me.
No. The internet is a tremendous resource, and offering an option to 'opt out' of ads and tracking is a tempting option. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of creating that sort of a division on the internet. Charging money for such a service will exclude anybody unable, or unwilling to pay. As a result, there would be essentially two 'casts' of internet, which is a concept that doesn't pass my smell test. The internet is supposed to be a place of equality--A community without borders. I believe if internet providers began offering this option it would marginalize the internet, and that price is not worth paying.
No. I understand that by using the internet's services, there are consequences. Those consequences are ads, data collection, and tracking. I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of my privacy in order to have free-access to information whenever I need it. Additionally, the information collected is not a monumental violation of my privacy. It definitely is not large enough that I would be willing to pay $25.00 every month.
I am conflicted with this question. I currently use ad blocker but I do not subscribe to services that make certain websites ad free like YouTube Red. I don't really care that businesses track me on the web, the data brokers are just doing what they need to make money, and I can respect that. But my question with this question is on mobile apps, would the social networking sites be ad free? Because if they were, then I would seriously consider paying a monthly fee of $25.00. But if the mobile apps still had ads, then it wouldn't be worth it to me to pay for it.
No, I would not go for a subscription based model of the Internet. The biggest reason for this is because I value the Internet as a place that anyone could get onto and utilize, no matter their socio-economic status. Putting up a fee to access it would cut off people from the biggest source of information in human history. I would prefer the current standard where access to the Internet is free, but certain cites require adds, donations, or fees of some kind to operate.
No, I accept that the Internet is a market of sorts where information is the currency by which we pay for access. I don't feel like I'm losing anything by giving away some information and there are still small ways I can protect myself by using ad block and turning off my location tracker.
Personally, I would not pay the $25.00 fee. I like having personalized advertising, it has helped me tremendously as someone who bargain-shops a lot. However, I do support the idea of such n option being available to those who would like to pay for it. The money could be used to create jobs and pay for a government entity to protect the privacy of those individuals online.
I do not think I would pay the 25 dollar fee. I actually do not mind having ads that are personalized to me. I think some people would really enjoy this option so I think it should be something that is made possible.
I think that if this were not a long-term solution, I would be willing to do this. If the use of the internet had been introduced to me like this, I would be more willing. If this policy were introduced now and was to be used indeterminately, I would be frustrated about the amount of money that I would be spending over the course of my life for this. This is only because this was not an expense I had to consider before. I would feel like something was being taken away from me. It's a pretty childish response, a response that assumes what one is given belongs to them and they have a right to it for the rest of their lives. I feel like a lot of people would be proud about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kali. I would be willing to do this as well, but because I know what it is like for the internet to be free, it makes it not as effective. A lot of people would be angry if they suddenly had to pay for access to the internet. However, most people have to pay for wifi to be connected to their homes, so maybe if that was put onto my wifi bill I might be more willing to do it. I also think that the original idea for the internet was a place where people from all over the world, of all different backgrounds, can connect. By implementing a cost to internet, it then excludes more people than it did before. Many websites or applications do this on their own. For example, Spotify lets you stream music for free with ads, you can pay them $5-10 a month to get rid of the ads. I like that this way better than putting a price on the internet because it gives people the right to choose what they want, instead of giving them an "all or nothing" kind of deal.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think I would probably be willing to do this. If I didn't choose to pay for this, I think it would be nice to at least have the option available. I pay for services to keep my computer safe from things like viruses when I am using the internet, so this would seem to fall under the same sort of category. People pay extra to get things like apps ad free, so I think that there would probably be other people besides me who would at least consider paying the $25. There are ad blocking services you can get for free, but I think it would be nice to also have your privacy protected from web activity tracking.
ReplyDeleteNo. While it would be nice to search the web without any sort of tracking, I wouldn't be willing to pay $300 a year to do it. I agree with the other comments so far that there probably would be people willing to upgrade to an "ad-free" Internet, but I personally don't think it's worth it. I'm so used to the ads online that I almost don't see them, and if my name gets put on some company's email list, it only takes a few clicks to remove it.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the comment that $300 a year seems like a lot, if it were the only option I think most people would be willing to pay. As an example of an extension to this, my family could save most of $100 per month if we didn't want internet access on our phones, and we have a very small data plan. Most people pay far more, so are paying more than $25/month for convenient access, not just access overall.
DeleteTwenty-five dollars per month for this type of service is a bit much in the long run and could possibly be economically detrimental to the average consumer. However, since it would prevent my data from being utilized in various ways that I did not knowingly consent to, it might just be worth it. The whole "I have nothing to hide" fallacy comes into play here; no, I don't have any deep, dark secrets that could possibly be revealed in this way, but I also don't want everything about my life and day-to-day habits analyzed and used for profit.
ReplyDeleteHallie...is that a "yes" or a "no." :)
DeleteI would absolutely be willing to pay the $25 per month. These companies provide a valuable service which I don't mind paying for. However, I would be very worried about blocking people off who couldn't pay, because the Web only really works because everyone has the ability to share. If there were some ad-supported model which ensures everyone has fair access, that would be a good compromise in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn short, nope. But this is honestly one of the more interesting questions to think about. As much as we say in class that the internet ought to be free of tracking and that we ought to be able to expect a good deal of privacy in our actions online, what we're basically saying is "I value my privacy, but not more than I value $25 a month." Which, itself is an understandable argument. I suppose I would be a lot more willing to pay $5 a month. Which makes me wonder, in terms of USD, what is my privacy online worth? In my privacy philosophy statement, I argued that privacy itself is like a currency, in that we essentially "pay" for services and applications with our personal information. All this said, I'd still really have a hard time parting with $25 a month.
ReplyDeleteNo. I would honestly rather save the money and have ads and some tracking. While I am not completely comfortable with being tracked, it is not something I'd necessarily pay to get rid of.
ReplyDeleteWould the fee be in addition to Internet provider service (pay per router), or would it be an account (pay per user) which allows you to access certain websites without ads? Also, would it be optional to pay for no ads but have the choice to leave ads?
Yes, but it's a matter of price for me. The way I see it, it's equivalent to a company coming out with a VPN that removes all ads and prevents search engines and other online companies from tracking you or collecting your information. That product is certainly valuable, but I wouldn't pay $25/month for that. I currently pay $30/year for a VPN that removes ads and prevents IP-based tracking. A jump from $30/year to $300/year for this proposed service is too great, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteKali and Hannah raise a good point as well: I would be concerned that this is implemented as the only way to access the Internet. As long as it is available as an option, alongside regular free access, I like the idea, if not the price.
No, I do not feel that the that the information that is collected from my internet use is a huge violation of my privacy. Mostly because most of the information is aggregated and used with everyone else's information. It is not as if these companies are tracking only my movements online in order to stalk me. If I did feel that the collection of my data was privacy invasive I would stop using the service instead of paying the fee.
ReplyDeleteYes I would, especially if it was the only way to access the services. The safety of mind is easily worth $25 a month. If there were no shady loopholes the companies could use, then removing their tracking will remove basically all the data collected on me. This also benefits me since I do not like ads and do not appreciate targeted ads trying to influence me.
ReplyDeleteNo. The internet is a tremendous resource, and offering an option to 'opt out' of ads and tracking is a tempting option. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of creating that sort of a division on the internet. Charging money for such a service will exclude anybody unable, or unwilling to pay. As a result, there would be essentially two 'casts' of internet, which is a concept that doesn't pass my smell test. The internet is supposed to be a place of equality--A community without borders. I believe if internet providers began offering this option it would marginalize the internet, and that price is not worth paying.
ReplyDeleteNo. I understand that by using the internet's services, there are consequences. Those consequences are ads, data collection, and tracking. I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of my privacy in order to have free-access to information whenever I need it. Additionally, the information collected is not a monumental violation of my privacy. It definitely is not large enough that I would be willing to pay $25.00 every month.
ReplyDeleteI am conflicted with this question. I currently use ad blocker but I do not subscribe to services that make certain websites ad free like YouTube Red. I don't really care that businesses track me on the web, the data brokers are just doing what they need to make money, and I can respect that. But my question with this question is on mobile apps, would the social networking sites be ad free? Because if they were, then I would seriously consider paying a monthly fee of $25.00. But if the mobile apps still had ads, then it wouldn't be worth it to me to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteNo, I would not go for a subscription based model of the Internet. The biggest reason for this is because I value the Internet as a place that anyone could get onto and utilize, no matter their socio-economic status. Putting up a fee to access it would cut off people from the biggest source of information in human history. I would prefer the current standard where access to the Internet is free, but certain cites require adds, donations, or fees of some kind to operate.
ReplyDeleteNo, I accept that the Internet is a market of sorts where information is the currency by which we pay for access. I don't feel like I'm losing anything by giving away some information and there are still small ways I can protect myself by using ad block and turning off my location tracker.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would not pay the $25.00 fee. I like having personalized advertising, it has helped me tremendously as someone who bargain-shops a lot. However, I do support the idea of such n option being available to those who would like to pay for it. The money could be used to create jobs and pay for a government entity to protect the privacy of those individuals online.
ReplyDeleteI do not think I would pay the 25 dollar fee. I actually do not mind having ads that are personalized to me. I think some people would really enjoy this option so I think it should be something that is made possible.
ReplyDelete