ITIF-大型科技公司的免费在线服务不会损害消费者的隐私（英）-2023.9-8页.pdf

itif.orgBigTech’sFreeOnlineServicesAren’tCostingConsumersTheirPrivacyHADIHOUALLA|SEPTEMBER2023Thereisnoevidencethatbreakingupbigonlineplatformswillimprovedigitalprivacy,butthereisoverwhelmingevidencethatbreakinguptheseservicesorrestrictingthemfromcollectinguserdatawillharmconsumersandworkers.KEYTAKEAWAYSDataiswhateconomistscalla“nonrivalrousgood,”meaningmultiplepartiescanusedatawithoutdepletingthedataavailabletoothers.Assuch,whenconsumerssharetheirdatawithcompaniestoaccessfreeonlineservices,theyexperiencenoloss,unlikewhentheypayforserviceswithmoney.Targetedadvertisingbasedonuserdataenablescompaniestoprovidehighlyvaluableservicestoconsumersforfree,supportsathrivingR&Decosystem,andcreatesahigh-value-addedtechsectorthatbenefitsAmericanworkers.Targetedadsdonotharmconsumers.Restrictingthispracticewouldloweradeffectivenessatacostof$33billionayeartotheU.S.economy.Alternativeonlineservicesthatdonotusetargetedadvertising,suchasDuckDuckGo,alreadyexist,butareunpopularwithconsumers,soantitrustinterventionstodeconcentratetechareunlikelytochangeconsumerpreferences.Banningtargetedadswouldforcecompaniestomonetizetheirserviceswithsubscriptionfeesagainstthewishesofconsumersandattheexpenseoflow-incomeconsumers.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION|SEPTEMBER2023PAGE2CONTENTSKeyTakeaways.1Introduction.....2DataIsNotLikeMoney.3UseofDatatoTargetAdsIsNotaConsumerHarm...3ConsumersAlreadyHavePrivacy-ProtectiveOptions..5ConsumersDon’tWanttoPayforOnlineServicesthatAreAlreadyFree.....6Conclusion6Endnotes...7INTRODUCTIONU.S.antitrustdoctrinehaslongfocusedontheconsumerwelfarestandard,particularlytheeffectofcompetitiononprices.Thisposesachallengeforanti-“BigTech”activists(neo-Brandeisians)becausemanydigitalservices—search,socialmedia,andsoforth—arefree.Sowhereistheconsumerharmfrommoreconcentratedmarkets?Thereisnone.Withoutatheoryofharm,acorejustificationforaggressiveantitrustactionislacking.Therefore,neo-Brandeisianshaveconcoctedanewharm:Peoplearenotonlypayingwiththeirdata,buttheyarealsopayingtoomuch.Anti-Big-Techactivistsrallyaroundtheslogan,“Ifyou’renotpayingfortheproduct,youaretheproduct.”1Andbecauseconsumersareallegedlyoverpayingwiththeirdata,aggressiveantitrustlegislationandenforcementarejustifiedsothatbigtechnologycompanieswillhavetocompeteonprivacy.WhileacreativedevicetojustifybreakingupBigTechfirms,thisviewisdeeplyflawed.First,unlikecashorphysicalgoods,dataisanonrivalrousgood;multiplepeopleandorganizationscanaccessthesamepersonaldataatthesametime,andthepersonisnoworseoff.Second,the“payingwithdata”viewalsorestsonthefalsenotionthatconsumerssufferwhencompaniescollecttheirdata.Infact,virtuallyalltargetedadvertisingbyBigTechfirmsisone-wayblind:Thetechcompanies’computershaveinformationonthecustomer,buttheadvertiserneverdoes.Thisiswhyinstancesofconsumersmateriallysufferingfromroutinedatacollectiononlargeplatformsareextremelyrare.Criticsoftenlabeltargetedadsbasedonconsumerdataas“creepy”and“invasive,”buttheycannotpointtoconcreteharms.Instead,theyrefertoabstractharms,s