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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 8:06am

    Zuckerberg and FB

    Mr. Z is a spoiled billionaire who won't listen to anyone but himself and his bank account. What's a few million$ in "philanthropy" when you make that much in a day, and can use it as a tax deduction?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 10:46am

      Re: Zuckerberg and FB

      This. Zuckerberg is a well-known slimeball, and his version of "philanthropy" here is fully in line with that.

      Plus, he seems to be of the opinion that being philanthropic (even though this initiative is not actually that) means you should get a pass when it comes to slimy behavior.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 7:37am

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:22pm

      Re: Zuckerberg and FB

      Is it philanthropy when it helps build your empire and expand your fortune?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 10:40am

    r. Zuckerberg should kindly shut the fuck up before he puts his foot in his mouth once again.

    He's only against Net Neutrality because his company can pay to be a monopolous entity, compared to a startup.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JustShutUpAndObey, 20 Apr 2015 @ 10:50am

    They always think that

    Every evil person is always certain of their own goodness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jessie (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 11:09am

    Throughout history, there are a lot of people we look upon as villains that meant well at the time. Tread lightly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:39pm

      Re:

      The vast majority of evil people in history thought they were doing good. That's the norm, not the exception. That's why what they think of themselves is unimportant. Their actions are important.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Billy Ardito, 20 Apr 2015 @ 11:21am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kiran Jonnalagadda, 20 Apr 2015 @ 11:49am

    Zuck in India

    Let's not forget that the man who hosted Zuckerberg in India is also questioning his claims over Internet.org today: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/NHdyVN9njNBvUtisGhTXSI/An-open-letter-to-Mark-Zuckerberg-on-net-neut rality.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 20 Apr 2015 @ 11:51am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:19pm

      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...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:20pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:42pm

      Re: No Net Neutrality!

      "At least it's some form of internet"

      I disagree. It's not the internet in any meaningful sense. It's more like AOL. It's using the internet as the means to deliver people into walled gardens.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:39pm

    Will domain fronting work?

    Has anyone experimented with the zero-rated Google service to see whether domain fronting works? Somebody still has to pay for the traffic, but it could be used as a form of arbitrage—i.e., to pay data center rates instead of mobile network rates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Will domain fronting work?

      "Domain fronting?" Someone felt the need for a fancier way to say "spoofing"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 1:48pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 3:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Will domain fronting work?

          Ahh, thanks for the explanation!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 3:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Will domain fronting work?

            I really have to finish my thought before I submit a comment. That sounds like spoofing to me, albeit a specific use case for spoofing. So a special term seems warranted. :)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2015 @ 12:44pm

    Rule #1 of "The Rules of Spam"

    Spammers lie. Spammer Mark Zuckerberg isn't the exception: there aren't any exceptions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    zarprime (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 1:30pm

    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.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 20 Apr 2015 @ 7:04pm

    coming from a guy who has been caught snooping and online stalking women that use facebook.

    What else do we expect from scum like this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2015 @ 2:32am

    Rich white "religion you are not allowed to critize" strongly supports a FREE service that makes him money. What a f' surprise.
    Would he support that free internet if it wouldnt include Facebook?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2015 @ 3:25am

    Checking-in at 5 a.m.

    This what the Zuckerberg's post really is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonimus, 21 Apr 2015 @ 8:32am

    Zuckerberg can go fuck himself

    Facebook was made as a system for corporate control of the internet from the start. Look up the reasons Mark Zuckerberg had the idea to make Facebook if you do not believe me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 10:32am

      Re: Zuckerberg can go fuck himself

      "Look up the reasons Mark Zuckerberg had the idea to make Facebook if you do not believe me."

      I thought it was to help him hook up with college chicks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 9:53am

    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".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2015 @ 2:39pm

    Zuckerberg hates privacy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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