Law, Economics, and Privacy: Implications of Government Policies on Website and Third-Party Information Sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread abuse of internet users' privacy online has prompted user advocacy groups to implore governments to intervene and protect consumer rights. To study such interventions' effects, we examine data-protection policies that policy makers and governments can enforce on websites, including consent-based user information sharing and subsidizing competing websites. Interestingly, we find that even though a consent-based policy may improve user surplus, it has the unintended consequence of increasing the number of third-parties and, thus, sharing of user information. We also determine that both consent-based and website subsidization policies may reduce competition by driving websites out of the market—to the detriment of user surplus and social welfare. Moreover, consent-based policies are not beneficial to websites, but are beneficial for third-parties. Policy makers should consider the different policy mechanisms at their disposal. Website subsidization is similar to a scalpel, enabling them to sculpt around and impact specific target markets. Consent-based policies are more comparable to a sledgehammer that uniformly affects all market segments. For circumstances where it is difficult for the government to enact a law for the entire market, website subsidization policies may be appealing alternatives, as they may yield higher user surplus than consent-based policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".