Facebook's Zuckerberg Thinks Aggressively Violating Net Neutrality Is Fine…If You Just Mean Well

from the open-your-ears-and-listen dept

As we noted last week, India is in the midst of a heated conversation about net neutrality, as the government puts out feelers to determine how best to define an “open internet.” As part of this conversation, Facebook’s Internet.org initiative has come under particular scrutiny; the platform offering users in some countries walled gardens to a limited crop of zero rated apps and content. While Facebook consistently emphasizes the philanthropic nature of this effort, content companies have been dropping out of the project in droves, arguing that they don’t like the idea of Facebook (or an ISP) determining who does and doesn’t get cap-exempt treatment (and therefore a leg up in the market).

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has since posted an interesting blog post in which he pretends to address these criticisms, but actually winds up showing he’s not actually listening to what critics of the initiative are saying. As Facebook has done previously, Zuckerberg first highlights his philanthropic motivations for the Internet.org initiative with a short anecdote:

“First, I?ll share a quick story. Last year I visited Chandauli, a small village in northern India that had just been connected to the internet. In a classroom in the village, I had the chance to talk to a group of students who were learning to use the internet. It was an incredible experience to think that right there in that room might be a student with a big idea that could change the world ? and now they could actually make that happen through the internet.”

And that’s great! If you’re in a philanthropic mood, give poor nations help connecting to The Internet. But as Susan Crawford and others have pointed out repeatedly, what these zero rated efforts by Facebook and Google offer is a selective, walled garden governed by the ad-delivery ambitions of a handful of large companies. That’s not the internet — it’s a fractured, tiny, Facebook-dominated version of AOL. And it’s one in which innovative startups can’t compete, because they can’t pay off the internet access tollman. So it’s a case where big players are able to pay up to effectively keep out the competition.

Zuckerberg proceeds to argue that zero rated systems are ok because some internet is better than none at all:

“We?re proud of this progress. But some people have criticized the concept of zero-rating that allows Internet.org to deliver free basic internet services, saying that offering some services for free goes against the spirit of net neutrality. I strongly disagree with this.

We fully support net neutrality. We want to keep the internet open. Net neutrality ensures network operators don?t discriminate by limiting access to services you want to use. It?s an essential part of the open internet, and we are fully committed to it. But net neutrality is not in conflict with working to get more people connected. These two principles ? universal connectivity and net neutrality ? can and must coexist.

To give more people access to the internet, it is useful to offer some service for free. If someone can?t afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access than none at all.”

Well, no. You don’t get to claim you support the open internet while at the same time building a system that is indisputably anything but.

And claiming people have to choose between no internet and Facebook’s vision of what its expanding international ad ambitions want the internet to look like is a false (and frankly insulting) choice. Again, if Facebook really wants to help — help by offering the actual internet — and all the freedom and opportunity that entails.

Zuckerberg then proceeds to take this bad logic further, by arguing that if you’re fighting against zero rated apps, then you’re the one hurting poor people:

“Arguments about net neutrality shouldn?t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity. Eliminating programs that bring more people online won?t increase social inclusion or close the digital divide. It will only deprive all of us of the ideas and contributions of the two thirds of the world who are not connected.”

While Zuckerberg claims to be fully supportive of net neutrality, someone should tell him that this bogus argument is the exact same one that anti-net neutrality folks from the big broadband companies have been making, and Zuckerberg’s statement plays right into their hands. They’ve been arguing (incorrectly) that pro-net neutrality forces are depriving the poor of internet access. And now they can quote supposedly “net neutrality supporter” Mark Zuckerberg making their argument for them. Over and over again, the big broadband players just keep arguing that they need to violate net neutrality to provide service to people in need, and Zuckerberg is advancing that argument for them, while claiming to be supportive of the other side.

Again, there’s nothing stopping Facebook from helping to finance real internet access in developing nations — even deals in which Facebook’s services and ads play a starring role (provided the internet access itself remains open). Instead, Facebook is pushing a walled garden where only Facebook exists (ridiculously under the name “internet.org” when it’s anything but). Remember, Facebook’s facing this backlash because India is trying to define what an open internet looks like, and consumers and content companies are making it pretty clear to Zuckerberg and the Indian government that an open internet doesn’t involve Facebook deciding which services and content consumers get to view. If Facebook cares as much about an open internet as Zuckerberg breathlessly claims, he’ll stop for a moment and actually listen. Internet.org can be a part of the solution, by helping to provide actual internet access, not limited walled gardens where only wealthy companies’ services are available.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, internet.org

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Facebook's Zuckerberg Thinks Aggressively Violating Net Neutrality Is Fine…If You Just Mean Well”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Zuckerberg and FB

Google: Don’t be evil. And we occasionally make bad decisions, but when called on it, we generally try and make it right.

Facebook: Don’t even bother pretending. Build the system on someone else’s stolen work, blatantly declare that “privacy means whatever I say it means” and “users don’t care about privacy anyway,” screw investors over with insider trading, support climate destruction, disappear critical posts, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Why doesn’t Mark Zuckerberg just grow a big black mustache and twirl it while he’s at it?

Billy Ardito says:

Poorly aimed efforts

Let’s not forget, If ISPs and wireless carriers offered truly unlimited data plans at reasonable prices there would be absolutely no need for this internet.org solution to begin with. It seems like a much better investment of time and energy to push for that than to build “internet.org.” Companies like Facebook actually have the money and influence to help do that. And, with more people connected it’s a win win for everyone except pampered ISPs used to incredibly high profit margins.

John Cressman (profile) says:

No Net Neutrality!

I don’t fault him for creating a walled garden. At least it’s some form of internet and seeing it might give local entrepreneurs ideas for competing and offering REAL internet.

But don’t give me crap and call it a hamburger. I fault him for trying to say he supports net neutrality while doing it. It’s like an author saying he supports local libraries – by creating libraries that only has HIS books in them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No Net Neutrality!

Zero rating has been in the cards for years. Google and Microsoft have their own gardens. It is a truely sad tendency and absolutely not in line with net neutrality since any walled garden approach is against net neutrality. The next thing will be introducing this to other countries with favourable prices at the ISP-level since demand for cheaper internet options are there and why should some countries gain this “advantage” while others don’t? Now we are starting to see the coming of internet 2.0, where all content is controlled for unwanted elements by the garden keepers and the content outside the garden will be unavailable…

Karl Bode (profile) says:

Re: No Net Neutrality!

“At least it’s some form of internet and seeing it might give local entrepreneurs ideas for competing and offering REAL internet.”

Except that those local entrepreneurs would be at an immediate advantage if they can’t afford to pay Facebook for honorary, cap-exempt status. So they might have the idea, but the implementation would be hamstrung by a totally broken and closed content market and ecosystem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Will domain fronting work?

It’s not really spoofing. If I connect to google.com but send “Host: facebook.com”, I’ll get an error. If I send “Host: my-app.appspot.com”, it will actually connect to a Google Appspot service. “Domain fronting” refers specifically to the case where a bunch of interchangeable “front” domains share the same backend.

So, if a carrier gives you zero-rated access to Gmail only, you could (if it works) also connect to Youtube, Orkut, or your personal Appspot proxy that gives you access to the whole internet.

zarprime (profile) says:

Now when one of these kids in India creates the next great app...

Will MZ put his money where is mouth is and zero-rate that app as well (without first having it acquired by FaceBook)?

This initiative is just the latest that tries to frame Internet users as “consumers” instead of creators.

(And what idiot came up with the phrase “zero-rated app”? The first time I read it I assumed it was an app that was so universally reviled that its average rating the the store was 0.)

nasch (profile) says:

The internet

How the story would go if Z got his way:

Last year I visited Chandauli, a small village in northern India that had just been connected to “the internet”. In a classroom in the village, I had the chance to talk to a group of students who were learning to use “the internet”. It was an incredible experience to think that right there in that room might be a student with a big idea that could change the world — and now they could actually make that happen through “the internet”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow