Attention Ownership

Yet, just because we feel that we own it, doesn’t make it so. The Attention movement is pushing back against the perceived loss of power due to wholesale tracking and monetization of online activity traces. Like children crying about their toys, the Attention Gang is saying “Mine!”

But it isn’t. Our interactions online are bi-directional. The digital trace is morally and legally owned by both parties. We have the choice to track our interactions. So do those we interact with.

What we do own is our own copy of that data trace. And because only we have access to all the places we go, we could have an advantage in leveraging that Attention to create value. To the extent that the GestureBank allows this sort of user-driven value, excellent. It’s a fine way to weave gold from the digital breadcrumbs of our daily interactions.

Let me make that perfectly clear. Much of the practical work being done by the AttentionTrust to create Attention tools and services deserves our engagement and support.

But there are some serious flaws in the picture being painted by the AttentionTrust.

You can’t force vendors to give up their property. Users don’t own the server-side traces of their Attention. If I visit a website, that vendor has every right to use every bit of data about that visit and what I do there to improve their business. The AttentionTrust argues that, in fact, vendors don’t own the data on their own servers. Users do. And therefore users should be allowed to delete it.

Ed Batista, the former Executive Director of the AttentionTrust wrote:

Allowing me to get my data out is great–but what if I want to delete it entirely?

That’s like suggesting someone has the right to retro-actively delete all the email or IMs they’ve ever sent me, because it represents their attention. That’s not only unreasonable, in some contexts it would actually be illegal.

In fact, the entire conversation from the Attention Trust ignores the fact that attention in bi-lateral relationships are always a two-way Attention exchange, with mutual benefit already built in. Just as shoppers pay attention at ecommerce websites, ecommerce sites pay attention to shoppers. We pay our attention to websites because they pay attention to us. There is reciprocal attention created.

Imagine if Google decided to ignore you. Or YouTube. Or Amazon. How fun would that be?

No matter how much we would like to assume control over our digital attention, we can’t. Those we pay attention to also own that Attention. After all, we paid it to them. If we can move past the populist politics of arbitrarily asserting the moral primacy of the individual, I think we can get a lot more traction with what we all really want: more value for people.

At the end of the day, that’s what everyone wants. Even companies. When businesses can be a part of creating value for their customers, they can create profit. So let’s stop chasing the red herring of who owns Attention and focus on how we translate Attention into Intention and into more efficient, more effective, and more powerful user choice.