Angolans Turning Zero-Rated Wikipedia, Facebook Into Ad Hoc File Sharing Services

from the internet-users-continue-to-be-amazing dept

Zero-rating -- the nifty trick companies use to edge around net neutrality rules -- is being offered to developing countries as a way to provide cheap internet access to their citizens. There's a bit of altruism in the offerings, but there's also a lot of walls surrounding gardens. Facebook's "Free Basics" is a zero-rated platform that functions like a twenty-first century AOL, funneling users into Facebook's version of the internet.

Wikipedia is similarly offering zero-rated access to countries with limited internet options. It -- along with Facebook -- has partnered with a local telecom to give Angolans access to data without having to pay provider rates for it. This includes its associated properties, like its Wikimedia Commons.

Angolans have taken to this pair of walled gardens and, ingeniously, turned them into an ad hoc zero-rated Pirate Bay, as Motherboard's Jason Koebler reports.

Enterprising Angolans have used two free services—Facebook Free Basics and Wikipedia Zero—to share pirated movies, music, television shows, anime, and games on Wikipedia. And no one knows what to do about it.

Because the data is completely free, Angolans are hiding large files in Wikipedia articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia site (Angola is a former Portuguese colony)—sometimes concealing movies in JPEG or PDF files. They’re then using a Facebook group to direct people to those files, creating a robust, completely free file sharing network. A description for a Facebook group with 2,700 members reads: “created with the objective of sharing music, movies, pictures, and ANIMES via Wikimedia.”
One possible solution is no solution at all: pulling the services from Angola. No one wants to look like they're depriving impoverished citizens of what's likely their only access to the internet. On the other hand, neither entity is too thrilled to be hosting possibly infringing material. Another solution is also no solution at all: playing whack-a-mole with content and new Wikipedia/Facebook accounts.

The third solution, though, is even worse. As Koebler explains, this proposed solution is predicated on some terrible assumptions about how people must behave to "earn" internet access privileges.
Many on the listserv are framing Angola’s Wikipedia pirates as bad actors who need to be dealt with in some way so that more responsible editors aren’t punished for their actions. This line of thinking inherently assumes that what Angola’s pirates are doing is bad for Wikipedia and that they must be assimilated to the already regulated norms of Wikipedia’s community. If the developing world wants to use our internet, they must play by our rules, the thinking goes.
Playing by the rules -- which basically means curbing infringement to appease rights holders -- may be a bad thing for Angolans in the long run, even if it seems like a plausible short-term solution. The "loopholes" in these zero-rated services aren't limited to spreading pirated content. They could also serve as handy tools for activism and dissent.
Angolan's pirates are learning how to organize online, they're learning how to cover their tracks, they are learning how to direct people toward information and how to hide and share files. Many of these skills are the same ones that would come in handy for a dissident or a protester or an activist. Considering that Angola has had an autocratic leader in power for more than 35 years, well, those are skills that might come in handy one day.
Shutting down dubious uses of the services will only result in greater local control of internet access, which is the last thing the country needs. The fact that people are using a service in ways it was never intended to be used is a feature, not a bug. Erecting walls only encourages people to find ways to route around them. These are important communication tools that democratizes Angolan internet access. (To a certain extent -- citizens with funds to pay for data charges will get the "real" internet, rather than the Facebook/Wikipedia version.). And this little bit of access -- no matter how controlled and contained -- is indisputably better than nothing at all. Further limiting this use will do more damage to those using this limited access to escape government control than it will to the file sharers so aptly illustrating how futile the "walled garden" concept actually is.

Hide this

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: angola, copyright, file sharing, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, wikipedia


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    TMC, 25 Mar 2016 @ 6:53am

    Welcome to the best part of the 21st century so far, Angola.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2016 @ 7:22am

    I cannot help but find this article a bit out of place considering all the ones on this site against Facebooks little project in India.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2016 @ 8:27am

      Re:

      Why? This article isn't in support of zero-rating, the author even describes it as circumventing net-neutrality rules.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2016 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      It's for subverted zero-rating. The fact that even zero-rating services, which are supposed to be highly regulated, teflon gardens, are actually subject to a thousand points of light (otherwise known as whack-a-mole) is pleasing to the spirit of Techdirt. As it is to me. :-)

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew, 25 Mar 2016 @ 7:30am

    Limit the file size?

    Do you need to be able to upload an entire movie to Wikipedia?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      cmbeid, 25 Mar 2016 @ 7:43am

      Re: Limit the file size?

      I feel like that is the obvious answer. 5MB upload limit on images, although that would impact extremely high resolution images.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2016 @ 7:55am

        Re: Re: Limit the file size?

        Solution: break the file up. I used to do this with RAR files back in the day.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2016 @ 8:24am

    Ha! Got to love the ingenuity of humans.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), 25 Mar 2016 @ 9:00am

    It's good to wake up to a nice hot cup of coffee and some schadenfreude.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.