Nick, I love you, but this sounds a tad disingenuous.
Yes, you supply all the content, but you get the social situation that the network enables. Sure, it’d be nice to get more. Heck, I’d love an extra $50 (and presumably a yearly payment based on however much the company makes in ads), but that’s unrealistic to ask. Just as it would be unrealistic to ask for the cafe you mention in your article to give me a percent of their profit. Yeah, the food was good, but if a tech company is expected to give a customer more, why shouldn’t one in the food industry?
Also, about that cafe, it actually does benefit from the “information” that its customers “provide.” I put those words in quotes because the information isn’t processed and provided in the same way as it is on social networks, but it is certainly part of the business. When I stroll past that cafe and see it filled with upper-middle class patrons, I identify the business, however unconsciously (and problematically), as one worthy of my expendable income. By frequenting that cafe, those patrons aren’t just helping it by paying for food; they’re also endowing it with their social capital. The only thing different with social networks is that people (mostly consciously) give those networks that same capital (usually through a much more explicit way), and the networks are intelligently designed to best take advantage of said capital.
Speaking of capital, let’s pull this in a more Marxist direction, as I am worried about this ancillary point that Bilton raises: “Those without the skills needed in this new economy — other than to tweet and post pictures — can fall further behind economically.” My gut says this is a more structural economic issue than one that can be solved with a simple attack on a singular company (or even type of company). But in spite of that, I’m not sure what a solution would be. Other than socialism, which as a capitalist, I’m not a big fan of.
