经济与社会科学2018journals.plos.org
通过付费让用户停用来估算 Facebook 的价值
Estimating Value of Facebook by Paying Users to Stop Using It
进阶 · 约 35 分钟读完前置知识：微观经济学基础、消费者剩余、拍卖机制
导读
这篇论文通过付费让用户停用 Facebook 一年，来估计 Facebook 对用户的价值。研究得到的平均要价超过 1000 美元，但评论指出中位数低得多（约 100 美元），说明用户感知价值分布很不均匀。核心做法是用补偿竞价来近似消费者剩余，而不是直接问用户愿意付多少钱。
HN 关注点：估值方法的偏差：平均值与中位数的差距、支付意愿与接受补偿意愿的不对称、网络效应，以及这是否真的反映了隐私价值。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 补充 1
质疑平均值误导，中位数约 100 美元；网络效应下价值分布不均，且支付意愿与接受补偿/离开意愿不同。
1000 美元这个数字有误导性：虽然它是平均值，但中位数要低得多，在这个案例里大约是 100 美元。这并不奇怪，说明大多数人没那么在意，少数人“真的很在意”，这对大多数商品来说很正常。由于存在网络外部性——用的人越多价值越高（FB 的价值在于网络而非功能）——更低的价格更合理。如果所有出价 100 美元或以下的人（比如三分之二人口）明天退出 FB，那些出价 1000 美元区间、“很喜欢 FB”的人可能也会离开，因为朋友不在了。这提示我们：在消费者剩余分布不均且网络效应很强的产品中，最优价格应该低。另外，付钱让人离开和掏钱购买是不同指标；作者肯定知道，但我没看到提及。WTP != WTL，支付意愿不等于离开意愿。
sonnyblarney查看英文原文
1) The $1000 is misleading because although it's an average, the median is considerably lower, around $100 in that case. 2) This shouldn't be surprising as it tells us most people don't care that much, and a few people 'really do' - which is normal for most goods. 3) Since we're dealing with network externalizations, wherein the value goes up when more people use it (the value of FB is the network, less so the features) - then a lower price makes more sense. If all those people who bid $100 or less (say 2/3 of the population) quit FB tommorow, than those in the $1K range who 'really like FB' would probably leave as well, because their friends would not be there. This gives us a hint that in product wherein the consumer surplus is not very evenly distributed - and there are strong network effects ... that the optimal price should be low. 4) Getting paid to leave is simply a different metric than having to get out your wallet to pay for something. Surely the authors know this but I didn't see it mentioned. 'WTP != WTL' i.e. willingness to pay is not the same as willingness to leave.
质疑收钱和付钱不对称，若 Facebook 每年收费 1000 美元，用户会大量退出。
很有意思。我打赌，如果对同一群人收每年 1000 美元使用 Facebook，他们都会退出。花还没进钱包的钱更容易；一旦要从钱包里掏钱，人们就会有反应。
marsrover查看英文原文
Pretty interesting. I bet if you took that same group and said Facebook now costs 1000 a year to use they would all quit. It’s easier to spend money that wasn’t in your wallet in the first place. It’s when you start taking it out of the wallet that people react.
质疑拍卖机制可能测的是出价策略而非真实估值，且替代品众多会压低 Facebook 的独特价值。
我不懂经济学术语，但也许普通人只是擅长利用机会？研究中第三方支付给最低出价者中第二低的金额，以换取停用。虽然没有一个竞争平台能完成 Facebook 所有应用的功能，但有很多替代品可以取代其中单个功能。于是拍卖变成一场游戏：尽量出高价，但仍是出价者中最低的之一，才能赢。反过来，如果 Facebook 一夜之间从免费涨到 1000 美元，人们会大量退出，同样因为有许多低价或免费可比服务能接管部分功能。航空公司超售也用类似机制决定谁改签、谁获补偿，所以这项研究可能更多是在测试人们秘密的出价策略，而不是 Facebook 的效用价值。后续可让人们在多种社交媒体中只保留一个自选服务，再竞价放弃最后一个。
sarcasmic查看英文原文
I don't know the economics terminology, but perhaps average people are just decent at exploiting opportunity? In this study a third party paid out the second-lowest amount to the bidders who bid the lowest amounts in return for deactivation. While no one competitor platform does everything of what Facebook's apps do, there are plenty of competitors they could make use of instead to replace particular single features or utilities of Facebook. The auction then becomes a game to bid an amount that's high as possible, yet still the lowest among the bidders, to actually win the bet. And instead, if Facebook raised prices from $0 to $1000 overnight, people would quit in droves, for the same reason: because dozens of comparable offerings exists at low or no cost that can take over subsets of the functionality in people's lives. Given that airline overbookings use the same scheme to decide who flies and who gets paid and bumped to a certain, yet hazy-on-details future flight, perhaps this study simply tests humans' secret bidding strategies much more so than it tests the value people place on Facebook's utility. One way to continue along this line of research would be to make people bid on giving up a much larger selection of social media services, with the exception of one, which would be their choice. They'd have to name their choice to keep. A second auction would then encourage them to name their price to give up that last one as well.
补充隐私并非被忽视，而是平台服务对用户的价值高于隐私。
我们一致发现，平均 Facebook 用户需要超过 1000 美元才会停用账号一年。Hackerati 喜欢抱怨大多数人不在乎隐私，乐意把它交给 Facebook 和 Google，甚至说这些人不知道自己在放弃什么。但也许人们确实重视隐私、也明白放弃的是什么——只是 Facebook 和 Google 提供的东西比隐私更有价值。
MarkMc查看英文原文
> we consistently find the average Facebook user would require more than $1000 to deactivate their account for one year The Hackerati like to bemoan that most people don't value their privacy and will happily give it up to Facebook and Google, even suggesting that such people don't understand what they are giving up. But maybe people do value their privacy and do understand what they are giving up - it's just that Facebook and Google offer something that is even more valuable than their privacy.
历次讨论
- 2018Hacker News 讨论帖284 分 · 191 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选