Proposal Floated to Pay Facebook Users Directly for Their Data

A recent opinion piece argues that social media users, including those on Facebook, should be directly compensated for the personal data and attention they provide to platforms that generate large advertising revenues.

The article, written by Drew Chapin and published in June 2018, frames this as a “real solution” to long running concerns over how companies like Facebook collect and monetize user information. Instead of simply accepting targeted advertising and opaque data practices, the piece suggests a model in which users receive a financial share of the value created from their activity and information.

According to the author, social media platforms are built on user generated content, behavioral data, and time spent on site, all of which feed sophisticated advertising systems. Those systems, in turn, produce substantial revenue for the companies that run them. The article contends that this value exchange is currently one sided, with platforms and advertisers benefiting while users are not paid despite being central to the business model.

The core idea presented is that users should be treated more like partners or contributors in the advertising ecosystem, rather than simply as a product. In that framework, Facebook and similar companies would share a portion of advertising income or data licensing value with the individuals whose data underpins the system. The piece frames this as a more equitable arrangement in which people receive tangible compensation for their participation.

The author positions this concept as a response to widespread public concern about privacy, data misuse, and a perceived lack of control over personal information on large platforms. While the text provided does not list specific scandals or incidents, it makes clear that the proposal emerges from an environment in which trust in social media companies and their handling of data has been under pressure.

The article does not provide a detailed technical or legal blueprint for how payments to users would be implemented. It does not specify the size of potential payouts, the criteria that would determine how much each user receives, or the mechanisms platforms would use to track and allocate value. Instead, it focuses on the principle that users deserve to share in the revenue because their data and engagement make that revenue possible.

No concrete regulatory proposals or existing laws are cited in the text provided. There is also no description of active negotiations between platforms, policymakers, or users on this specific compensation model. The piece functions more as a conceptual argument and a call for a shift in how digital advertising value is distributed, rather than as a report on an ongoing policy process.

The article also does not detail how such a system would interact with current privacy expectations, terms of service, or consent frameworks. For example, it does not specify whether users would need to opt in to more extensive tracking in exchange for payment, or whether compensation would instead be linked to stricter rules around what data can be collected and how it can be shared.

The text provided does not include discussion of how this approach might affect smaller platforms, publishers, or app developers that rely on advertising, nor does it explore the potential impact on advertising prices or effectiveness. It also does not examine how compensation might work for users across different countries with varying regulations and economic conditions.

For Bay Area readers, the argument connects directly to the region’s dominant role in social media and ad tech. Companies headquartered in and around the Bay Area, including Facebook’s parent company Meta, sit at the center of this debate over who benefits financially from user data. The proposal to pay users for their data challenges a core part of the prevailing business model that has defined much of the local technology industry’s growth.

The piece presents the payment concept as a way to better align incentives among users, platforms, and advertisers. However, the text available does not describe how platforms might react to such a shift, whether they would see it as a necessary evolution or a threat to profitability. It also does not include reactions from Facebook or any other company.

There is no information in the text about pilot programs, startups, or products already paying users for data in the way the author describes. The argument is presented at a high level, focused on fairness and recognition of user contributions, without specific examples of implementation or case studies.

The article ends up placing the idea of direct user compensation into the broader discussion about the future of digital advertising and data ownership. It suggests that paying people for the use of their information could be one path to address concerns over exploitation and imbalance in the current model, but it does not claim that this shift is underway or imminent.

Because the provided text is partial and does not include the full body of the original article, there may be additional nuances, examples, or counterarguments in the complete version that are not reflected here. Based on what is available, the central theme is clear: if platforms like Facebook continue to depend on user data to power their advertising businesses, the people providing that data should be able to share directly in the financial upside.