My gripe with the author is this: if you’re going to argue about the cost of big data but ignore the elephant in the room, then you’re not making an honest argument. There’s no way this guy doesn’t know about Cambridge Analytica or Zuckerberg’s appearance before Congress etc etc. These are some of the key events which has everyone thinking that maybe the real cost of this data in the grand scheme is actually a lot. The direct cost to you may not be felt, but it may damn well shape the world. The author just grazes by this by saying since people didn’t think this way five years ago, it must not matter? This is basically the whole context for the issue and the author is hand-waving it away so he can frame it as naively as he could 5 years back.
I don't see where he is arguing about or denying the cost of big data, all he says is "five years ago hardly anyone realized that they had data." Do you disagree with this claim that most people were not very worried about their data before tech companies started finding ways to mine it for profit? In other words, the problem of tech companies assembling digital profiles of customers is a direct consequence of our use of their extremely popular services. Even today, people say they want companies to collect less data, but most are not willing to pay for more privacy. If your concern is election manipulation, this seems an inevitable side effect of any mass communication technology: television before the internet, radio before television, newspapers before radio. But again, the author does not deny these negative side effects, he merely claims that the benefits are so great relative to the costs that the unrelentingly negative commentary about tech companies is unreasonable.
A hundred years ago, hardly anyone in Indio realized that they had water. That does not mean that the data has no value, nor that the first person to recognize the value of an asset is entitled to that asset. The study you link does not indicate that people aren't willing to pay for more privacy, it indicates that people aren't willing to pay for Google or Facebook. Every question there is about privacy is a "strongly agree" plurality except "I would like online services such as Facebook and Google to collect less of my data even if it means paying a monthly subscription fee." It doesn't demonstrate that consumers don't value privacy, it demonstrates that consumers don't value Google or Facebook. It's almost as if they're forced into a predatory business model by their lack of utility.I don't see where he is arguing about or denying the cost of big data, all he says is "five years ago hardly anyone realized that they had data."