Facebook's Plan To Be The Compuserve Of Developing Nations Faces Mounting Worldwide Criticism
from the altruism-incorporated dept
What began as some squabbling over the definition of net neutrality in India has evolved into a global public relations shit show for Facebook. As we've been discussing, India's government has been trying to define net neutrality ahead of the creation of new neutrality rules. Consumers and content companies have been making it very clear they believe Facebook's Internet.org initiative violates net neutrality because it offers free, walled-garden access to only some Facebook approved content partners, instead of giving developing nations access to the entire Internet.Internet.org partners began dropping out of the initiative, arguing they don't like any model where Facebook gets to decide which content is accessed for free -- and which content remains stuck outside of Internet.org. Facebook so far has responded by trying to claim that if you oppose Internet.org you're the one hurting the poor, because a walled garden is better than no Internet at all. Of course that's a false choice; Facebook could simply provide subsidized access to the entire Internet, but that wouldn't provide them with a coordinated leg-up in the developing nation ad markets of tomorrow.
So far Facebook's defense of Internet.org's zero rating of some content has only made criticism louder. A coalition of sixty-seven different digital activism groups from thirty-one different countries this week penned an open letter to Facebook on Facebook, arguing that Internet.org will actually hurt the poor by cordoning off meaningful parts of the actual Internet. The groups, many of which have been pushing for increased broadband deployment far longer than Facebook has, are quick to point out that Facebook's injection of itself between users and the Internet doesn't just raise net neutrality concerns, but privacy and security issues as well:
The censorship capability of Internet gateways is well established — some governments require ISPs to block access to sites or services. Facebook appears to be putting itself in a position whereby governments could apply pressure to block certain content, or even, if users must log in for access, block individual users. Facebook would find itself mediating the real surveillance and censorship threats to politically active users in restrictive environments. The company should not take on this added responsibility and risk by creating a single centralized checkpoint for the free flow of information.Facebook tried to ease concerns by recently including more content partners, but there's still an absurd number of restrictions. Content can't integrate video, VoIP, Flash, Javascript or Java applets. Internet.org is also blocking any and all encrypted sites at a point in time when encryption is more important than ever, for developed and developing nations alike. The EFF was quick to point this out in a statement of its own issued this week opposing the initiative:
...We are very concerned about the privacy implications of Internet.org. Facebook’s privacy policy does not provide adequate protections for new Internet users, some of whom may not understand how their data will be used, or may not be able to properly give consent for certain practices. Given the lack of statements to the contrary, it is likely Internet.org collects user data via apps and services. There is a lack of transparency about how that data are used by Internet.org and its telco partners. Internet.org also provides only a handful of applications and services, making it easier for governments and malicious actors to surveil user traffic.
Even if Facebook were able to figure out a way to support HTTPS proxying on feature phones, its position as Internet gatekeepers remains more broadly troublesome. By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to (portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby, cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service. In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true global Internet.Still, so far there's every indication that Facebook either doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, what critics are saying. The company recently posted a new myths versus facts release on the Internet.org site that somehow manages to talk over, under and around most of the points critics have been making. There's also this gem, in which Facebook actually denies that Internet.org has anything to do with making money:
MYTH: Facebook has launched Internet.org to help drive its own growth and revenue opportunities within developing countries.This pretense on Facebook's part that Internet.org is solely about altruism is adorable, but it's not clear who, if anyone, actually believes that. To most, it's obvious Facebook wants in at the ground floor in order to dominate the ad markets of tomorrow, and what better way to do that than to position yourself as the walled-garden Compuserve of developing nations. Facebook could nip this entire problem in the bud in two simple steps. One, Facebook needs to stop acting like everyone is too stupid to see its real motives. And two, if Facebook is so very concerned about the poor, it should put its money where its mouth is and shift to a subsidized model that gets Facebook out of the way and provides access to the real Internet, free from obvious interference, censorship, privacy and neutrality concerns.
FACT: There are no ads within the Facebook experience on Internet.org. If revenue were the goal, Facebook would have focused resources on markets where online advertising is already thriving."
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: criticism, internet.org, net neutrality
Companies: eff, facebook, internet.org, mozilla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heck, I used Netzero back in college for free dialup internet access (back when Netzero was actually free). You had a little ad browser that docked at the top of your web browser. As humans are apt to do, you just developed tunnel vision and ignored the ads, but you still got access to the entire internet. There were no restrictions on particular websites or protocols.
And if you were clever, you went into the folders on your computer where they stored the ads locally and you just replaced the ad images with blank images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In related news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note the weasel words. They are not saying there are not ads on internet.org, they are saying there are no ads on facebook on internet.org. But given all the site restrictions, I would bet getting your ads properly served is next to impossible. In fact this gem from the participation guidelines just about guarantees it: But just because the internet.org Facebook is Ad-Free, doesn't mean Facebook isn't willing to offer their ad network to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And who is funding the rest?
I imagine providing the real internet for free will cost a little more than Facebook is willing to spend. Who's going to step up & spend the rest?
Maybe sites should just offer 1% for the developing world. 1% of total revenue is used to subsidize internet access. You guys should get it started!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And who is funding the rest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And who is funding the rest?
Here's the thing: none of us are in a position to demand Facebook do anything. If the campaign to get them to not do something is successful, it's not clear that Facebook or anyone else will pick up the baton for subsidized access. In any case, it will certainly take longer to provide that access.
But for people that already have the real internet, getting Facebook to not provide a dumbed down version is a win, right? After all, the poor in developing country shouldn't be allowed the option of accepting Facebook's Internet.org offer. We know better what the developing poor want than they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And who is funding the rest?
Subsidized rate- or data-limited access to the internet would achieve the same effects, could be done for similar cost. The significant difference is facebook won't be positioned to be the only ad provider to 2/3 of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And who is funding the rest?
ISPs are keen to encourage it and offer low price, low volume packages. Take a look at this for less than $3/month: OK, you cannot watch much video with that, but at least you have access to the whole internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine how much that data is worth... That data warehouse is the what tech companies wet dreams are made of...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Facebook does not say there will never be ads. They say they aren't there now. One of the wet dreams of tech companies is a datawarehouse. One of the wet dreams of advertisers is individual identified data. By setting up the inability to use encryption they are guaranteeing their access to all data. This isn't by accident and it's a no brainer what it is about.
I already have enough problems with Facebook gathering data, especially since I am not a member, don't have an account, never been there, and don't want one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have some sympathy for Zuckerberg
I think Zuckerberg is sincere here, at least mostly. He really wants to bring Internet access to the 3rd world, and is only minimally trying to personally benefit from the project (not saying some of that hasn't leaked in - it clearly has).
But this is a mistake.
I'm sympathetic to the intent behind the technology restrictions (video, VoIP, Flash, Javascript or Java applets); these are not content restrictions, and these technologies all involve a high ratio of computrons to content (unlike text).
But it's dumb. Targeting feature phones might have been sensible 15 years ago. But by the time this rolls out even peasant farmers will have smartphones (the price of a basic one is heading toward zero very, very rapidly).
And - even if he could somehow make the technology limits stick, guess what would happen? People would start encoding video, VoIP, etc. in text files, that's what.
So I give him credit for trying to do a good thing. I think he means well (with only a little self-interest involved).
We should thank him, and gently but firmly explain why it's a bad idea.
I do wish people were more charitable in their assessment of the motives of those they disagree with. People can be wrong without being evil or selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have some sympathy for Zuckerberg
The big problem with these restriction is that they block the most useful educational resources available on the Internet. Text is of limited value when trying learn practical skills, while a few minutes of video can make how to do something clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have some sympathy for Zuckerberg
Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have some sympathy for Zuckerberg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have some sympathy for Zuckerberg
Absolutely true. But people also have track histories, and we have to interpret Zuckerberg's actions through the lens of his history. And his personal history is dominated by him being evil and selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
will you PLEASE quit mischaracterizing Compuserve? It makes you sound stupid!
Every time you try to insult Zuckerberg's monstrosity by likening it to Compuserve you make yourself sound stupid.
Compuserve charged virtually all users the same rate (by the hour, because it was dial-up). It was not a "walled garden" in which captive users were tied down and digitally-raped by advertisers. Compuserve was NOT a place where people too poor to get "real BBS service" went to get advertiser-supported "pseudo-free BBS service". Compuserve was just a very good, giant BBS/timesharing service which sophisticated people used to communicate before the (TCP/IP) Internet/WWW grew up.
Ask Jerry Pournelle (the world's first blogger) if Compuserve was like Zuckerberg's project. Ask anyone, if you won't believe me.
Prodigy or even AOL would serve your comparison purposes better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: will you PLEASE quit mischaracterizing Compuserve? It makes you sound stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or more likely, they understand and they are lying.
For fucks sake why do you think that every word they say is true?
Same for the government, a lot of articles here make it look like they are dumb and dont understand whats happening instead of accepting the fact that people lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the big lie
this is what they are doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where to start?
-Facebook is a business and internet.org is a product.
-Some access _is_ better than no access. The online discussions necessarily only include the voices and opinions of those people with access.
-This is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Would free access for everyone be optimal? Yes. Is anyone offering that? No. Is someone offering a limited form of it? Yes.
-It's not altruism. It is about accessing big new markets and customers. That said, no one else is reaching out to these people on this scale. In the process users will determine what they want. Once users have experience of internet.org, it will likely lead to an experience of a less filtered Internet. How many people still have AOL accounts?
-Criticisms regarding privacy, security, and censorship are quaint. In all of these countries, the government already undermines these goals more than Internet.org.
Again #firstworldproblems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree completely. This is letting the bad be the enemy of the good. This effort is bad for nearly everyone: it's bad for the internet at large, and it's bad for the people who will use the service.
What I find interesting is that the entire controversy could have been avoided if Facebook wasn't trying to claim that what it's doing is allowing internet access (since that's not what it's doing). If they has said that it was a private, specialized service then there probably would have been little backlash.
What they're doing instead is more like a bait-and-switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(Forgive the prose: I'm in training to fight James Comey this summer in the Ultimate Tortured Metaphor Smackdown Challenge.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope facebook company more attention for making user enjoyable using this social media.
Agent,
Smith airpaz.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope facebook company more attention for making user enjoyable using this social media.
Agent,
Smith airpaz.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]