Mozilla: If Facebook Really Wants To Help Developing Nations, It Should Ignore Zero Rating And Fund Real Internet Access
from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept
Facebook's been taking a lot of heat lately for failing to understand (or pretending to fail to understand) how its Internet.org initiative spells trouble for net neutrality. As noted previously, Facebook's vision has been to deploy a "free" walled-garden service like AOL to developing nations. Critics have been dropping out of Internet.org, stating they don't like Facebook picking which companies get included in the walled garden. Things have gotten particularly heated in India, where neutrality advocates have made it very clear they think Facebook's vision hurts the open Internet long term.Zuckerberg's response so far? You're hurting the poor if you don't like the way we're doing things, because a walled garden is better than no Internet at all. Of course that's a false choice: Facebook could offer subsidized access to the real Internet, it just wouldn't get pole position in delivering ads to billions of new users in dozens of developing nations. It's a mammoth advertising play dressed up as utterly-selfless altruism, with a dash of indignant at suggestions there's a better way.
Mozilla recently decided to jump into the conversation with a series of blog posts offering a much more intelligent, nuanced take on the problem with zero rated apps. In one post, Mozilla notes how if you let Facebook create a new definition of the Internet today, you're setting the stage for notable problems down the road:
"We understand the temptation to say “some content is better than no content,” choosing a lesser degree of inclusion over openness and equality of opportunity. But it shouldn’t be a binary choice; technology and innovation can create a better way, even though these new models may take some time to develop. Furthermore, choosing limited inclusion today, even though it offers short-term benefits, poses significant risk to the emergence of an open, competitive platform that will ultimately stifle inclusion and economic development."That mirrors concerns by folks like Stanford Professor Susan Crawford, who have lambasted such models for "entrenching and amplifying existing inequalities and contributing to poverty of imagination." Mozilla notes there's plenty of ways to help fund Internet access to developing nations that doesn't involve building walls and cherry picking program participants. For example the company has struck a partnership with Orange to provide $40 Firefox OS smartphones with 6 free months of voice, text, and up to 500 MB per month of data. Another effort offers a small allotment of free data for watching an ad.
In short, there are options that don't turn the Internet into a glorified version of CompuServe. But rushing toward walled gardens again isn't just about today, it's about what these ideas mutate into over the longer haul. Mozilla Foundation Chair Mitchell Baker took this idea further in a second blog post:
"Selective zero-rating is unquestionably bad for the long term opportunities and inclusion for the people it is designed to serve. It pre-selects what’s available, directing people to where others want them to go. It is bad for economic inclusion. It is bad for the ability of new entrepreneurs to grow onto the global scale. It is bad for the long term health of the Internet. Zero-rating as practiced today is “selective zero-rating for a few apps and websites; exclusion for the rest of the Internet."In other words, if Facebook really wants to help the poor, it can do so by using Internet.org to fund access to the "real Internet," not some bastardized version of the Internet that lets Facebook and select ISP partners play god. The conversation in India mirrors the conversation we've been having about systems like AT&T's Sponsored Data here in the States; opposition to zero rating is simply about getting massive gatekeepers out of the way and ensuring equal access to the purest version of the 'Net possible.
The correct answer is that all data is transmitted at the same price, whether that price is "zero" or anything else. This way, consumers pick the content they choose to access based on the quality of that content, not the financial power and business partnerships of the provider. This way, new entrepreneurs can still reach any and all users on the Internet, even if they are a few people working in a co-working space with no ability to subsidize data charges."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband access, developing nations, internet access, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, mozilla
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook
If you think Fuckerberg is any kind of a philanthropist then then let me assure you, he has successfully purchased your opinion with public monetary.
Rich people buy public opinion because there are a lot of suckers for sale. It is clear he is a dirt bag and it just so happens he is not alone in his arena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So there is already a choice, FB just want to make a cheaper option which is FB only so they can make loads of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that this isn't "good". It's the opposite: it's a clear and obvious trap for all concerned: the poor that they purport to want to help and the rest of the internet in general.
It's fair to let the good be the enemy of the bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That should be what FACEBOOK picks what you see.
Checked it out lately? "Suggested posts", posts not organized by time posted, and posts that don't show up for over 12 hours! (I missed out on a 10 dollar gift card because it required a reply within 10 hours of the post!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which would you choose if those were your 3 options, and they couldn't interact with each other?
It's a bit like only being able to call other people with the same phone carrier as yours - except you're limited not just to communications with a single source but information availability through a single source as well. It's a terrible and greedy option for poor and developing countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On-Line
FOL - FaceBook On-Line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet - Facenet - Skynet
One server realised this mistake and took the appropriate action against humankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His BS
-FTFM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]