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."

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."
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.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 6:35am

    Zuckerberg's only thinking about one thing , how can I ,like all other corporations capitalize on the poor and appear humanistic In my approach.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 7:10am

    Facebook

    Only wants to help them onto the facebook service, where he can sell their data and privacy while acting like an angel.

    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.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 15 May 2015 @ 7:19am

    Well, if the Govt is any example Zuckeberg will be saying that Mozilla is supporting terrorism next. Tough to defend his position as more and more entities that promote open systems and access position themselves against the idea...

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

  • icon
    jlaprise (profile), 15 May 2015 @ 7:23am

    I side with FB on this one and think Mozilla is wrong on this. It shouldn't create a binary choice but it does. No one else is providing access to the developing world on this scale and some access is better than no access. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, FB is a company and it's goal is to create customers. Period. They've just trying to do both.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 7:34am

      Re:

      The problem with approach is that it creates the Facebook tribe, which will be joined by other tribes. This then becomes another division in society, especially if it is difficult to impossible for the different tribes to speak to each other. This suites those in government and their supporter, as it helps prevent society organizing against them.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 7:43am

      Re:

      You realise that dovelopping nations already have access to the internet?

      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.

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 15 May 2015 @ 7:57am

      Re:

      "We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

      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.

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

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 15 May 2015 @ 8:01am

      Re:

      No it doesn't create a binary choice, as clearly seen by Mozilla's partnership which would provide access to the real internet (as described). If it wanted to be altruistic and help poor people onto the internet, it could. What Facebook is doing is trying to become the one and only ad provider to poor people. Period. It has no altruistic goals. Claiming Facebook's business move is an altruistic one is political spin, nothing more. It might help in the short term. But if we allow Facebook to become entrenched as the sole provider for the poor, we risk a future no one is going to provide subsidized access for the poor except in the Facebook model, which means allowing big corporations to pick what India sees. Meaning smaller start-ups which might be of benefit to the poor might never be seen, because they aren't allowed into the walled garden. We have seen this behavior before from walled gardens (Apple), and there is no reason to believe Facebook will be any better as a gatekeeper.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 9:08am

        Re: Re:

        ...the Facebook model, which means allowing big corporations to pick what (you) see...

        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!)

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

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 15 May 2015 @ 9:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh certainly there are concerns about facebook's algorithms on Facebook. But the nuances of what we want from a social media site are not what is being discussed. I was referring to the general future where other companies started offering "internet" for the poor on the Facebook model, which means it might be a different company choosing what you see. Hence my wording.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 8:03am

      Re:

      And you would be OK with Google or Microsoft doing the same thing?

      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.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 8:03am

    The march for more power has always been done in the name of the poor.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 8:23am

    On-Line

    AOL - America On-Line
    FOL - FaceBook On-Line

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 9:14am

    Walled gardens with selective inclusion based on arbitrary rules? It's worked great for North Korea, hasn't it... sigh.

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

  • identicon
    KMB, 15 May 2015 @ 11:13am

    Internet - Facenet - Skynet

    After years of successful operation of zero-rated internet Zuckerberg announced the next step of his master plan: Facebook will become Skybook.

    One server realised this mistake and took the appropriate action against humankind.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2015 @ 12:32pm

    His BS

    is so thinly veiled we all have a translucent brown sheen about us.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2015 @ 1:22pm

    NSAbook wants to expand in the name of "freedom".

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 3:22am

    Has anyone notified Kingsmen?

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

  • identicon
    Bo, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:52pm

    In Sweden we allready have free internet. It is called Wifog it is financed by adds.

    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
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
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.