Zuckerberg is right not to police political speech; but he’s wrong not to pay users for their data.
There’s nothing wrong with Facebook’s business model except it will never pay users enough for their data. That’s why data banking could benefit Facebook.
On the surface, there is nothing wrong with selling ads online. But Facebook hyper-targets ads to vulnerable users; and it becomes problematic when those ads are politically charged.
The only way to align the interests of users, advertisers, and tech platforms is to embed accountability into the network. Here I outline the big role anonymous identities play in the issue.
I want to discuss how a new central bank achieves this. In particular, a data-based central bank may directly send data’s value to humans and facilitate an ecosystem in which demand for data increases data’s value, the price of a new currency, and the thickness of humans’ wallets.
In such a world, humans would be pleased to receive hyper-targeted ads since they contribute to the demand for data and sustainable currency price. Misinformation would be less easily amplified due to the elimination of anonymous and robot accounts.
Thereby, free speech would not be as resented a value as it is today.
So why doesn’t Facebook create a new central bank that disseminates a new data currency? (This is not the idea behind Libra, which intends to issue tokens in exchange for cash.) To be honest, they should, but they appear to be enjoying their position as data imperialists.
Join us on LinkedIn and Twitter