The service is free to use. My access to it is not conditional to my authentic participation in unpaid labor, and nor is it equivalent.
Personal data has value. Thought has value. Commercial enterprises like this attempt to suppress that value, while simultaneously using it to position themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They should pay us for our data.
What they do is akin to a car manufacturer saying they shouldn’t pay the person who makes nuts and bolts, because nuts and bolts have far less value than a car, and the people who make nuts and bolts do not know how to build a car. This is would be a ridiculous scenario; it is also ridiculous that users aren’t paid fairly for their data.
If people were paid fairly for their data, then these businesses would have no scope to raise the price of their product in line with this new (fair) material cost. This is because the cost of their product is already an exaggeration of the value they provide. They sell their product for more than it’s worth, meanwhile they pay their data suppliers (every single human being) nothing. Of course they don’t want you to realise the value they’re taking, doing so could only reduce their profits.
That isn’t the deal as described in the contract. That is how they try to frame the deal after the fact, to convince people to let them get away with it.
The site is free to access. While you access it, they claim rights to your data, or in this case the output of your work. It is not an exchange of access for data/labor, it is a free provision with terms snuck in via the fine print.
Way to throw a shit fit over paying 5 seconds of labor to use a service
The service is free to use. My access to it is not conditional to my authentic participation in unpaid labor, and nor is it equivalent.
Personal data has value. Thought has value. Commercial enterprises like this attempt to suppress that value, while simultaneously using it to position themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They should pay us for our data.
What they do is akin to a car manufacturer saying they shouldn’t pay the person who makes nuts and bolts, because nuts and bolts have far less value than a car, and the people who make nuts and bolts do not know how to build a car. This is would be a ridiculous scenario; it is also ridiculous that users aren’t paid fairly for their data.
If people were paid fairly for their data, then these businesses would have no scope to raise the price of their product in line with this new (fair) material cost. This is because the cost of their product is already an exaggeration of the value they provide. They sell their product for more than it’s worth, meanwhile they pay their data suppliers (every single human being) nothing. Of course they don’t want you to realise the value they’re taking, doing so could only reduce their profits.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is, and you’re being paid by access.
Is paying in labor instead of money such an alien concept to you?
That isn’t the deal as described in the contract. That is how they try to frame the deal after the fact, to convince people to let them get away with it.
The site is free to access. While you access it, they claim rights to your data, or in this case the output of your work. It is not an exchange of access for data/labor, it is a free provision with terms snuck in via the fine print.
It’s really not that complicated. If you don’t want to pay to use a service, that’s your perogative, but it’s not a deceptive trade at all.
The website gets to avoid bots spamming forms, you get access to the forms, and Captcha gets some training data. Everyone benefits