with disdain. Many felt that their information would be used in ways they had never agreed to. In a matter of days millions of people downloaded rival messaging services such as Signal and Telegram, which promised to limit the use of personal data. The episode was a reminder that consumers will not remain passive when they believe their trust is being abused.
Discord, another platform popular among younger audiences, has faced repeated questions about its handling of data. Concerns range from safety in online communities to the possibility that information shared in chats might be exposed. Parents, regulators, and users themselves are alert to these risks. Whenever a company appears to take too much without giving anything back, it places its reputation at risk.
Apple has chosen another path. By charging premium prices for its devices and avoiding heavy reliance on advertising revenue, it presents itself as a defender of privacy. Consumers respond to that promise, and the company has woven it into its brand identity. People pay more not just for the device but for the assurance that their data will not be sold. The success of Apple demonstrates that respect for privacy can be a commercial advantage in its own right.
The challenge is not whether consumers should be compensated but how. A single location point or one purchase record has little worth on its own. Data becomes valuable only when aggregated with millions of other records. That makes it difficult to decide what to pay an individual. Attempts to create data marketplaces where people sell their own information have often led to disappointing results, with payments of
just a few cents. Such sums feel trivial and do little to make consumers believe that their contribution is valued.
For compensation to work, it must feel meaningful. This does not always mean direct cash payments, although those may have a role. It may take the form of reduced prices, loyalty rewards, or improved services. A retailer might offer discounts in exchange for purchase histories. A streaming service might provide ad-free listening or higher quality sound when users agree to data analysis. A community fund could distribute dividends drawn from the collective value of user data. In other cases, people might take part in specific projects, such as medical studies or urban planning initiatives, with clear rewards attached to clearly defined purposes.
There are risks in all of these approaches. Financial pressure could push vulnerable people to share information they would prefer to keep private. The greater the exchange of data, the greater the number of points at which it may be lost or stolen. Payment cannot be treated as a waiver of rights. Companies must still provide access, deletion, and correction, and they must still protect privacy with the highest standards of security. Compensation is an addition to these duties, not a replacement for them.
None of these challenges removes the force of the principle. Consumers are not passive. They are active participants in the creation of value. The modern economy runs on the decisions they make every day, on the trails of information they leave behind, and on the insights that can be drawn from their behaviour. To treat them as though they contribute nothing is to ignore the reality of how this economy functions.
Paying for data would correct this imbalance. It would recognise the contribution of consumers, provide greater transparency, and create more resilient bonds between people and the companies that depend on them. It would also show that businesses understand their responsibilities not merely as obligations imposed by regulation but as part of a broader commitment to fairness.
We have already seen what happens when companies treat data as something to be taken rather than shared. Distrust grows, competitors gain ground, and governments intervene. We have also seen what happens when companies position themselves as protectors of information. Consumers respond with loyalty, even at higher prices. These lessons point in the same direction. Data is too important to be left as a free resource for corporations. It is time for consumers to be recognised and rewarded as the true suppliers of this modern raw material.
Paying consumers would not only bring fairness to the exchange but also secure the trust on which the entire system depends. Without that trust, the data economy will continue to face suspicion and resistance. With it, we could build a future where information is not extracted from people but shared with them, and where the benefits of the digital world are more evenly distributed.
Diana Obath is a seasoned Public Relations and Communications Specialist. You can commune with her on this or related issues via mail on: ObathD @ gmail. com.