India, Facebook and Universal Access

In 2015, Mark Zukerberg and the executives at Facebook attempted to bring Universal Internet Access to India via Facebook. The initiative was called Internet.org, or Free Basic. The intent was that Facebook would bring the Internet to regions of India that suffered from little or no online access. The offer was not received as planned.

India knew, based on previous experience with such offers, that even if Internet.org / Free Basic had brought Internet access to regions of India that had none, the elimination of competition and the Facebook monopoly would have ensured that not only did Facebook come to control the nature of information provided, but also it's cost. 

In a pointed article covering the affair, Rahul Bhatia presents a number of scathing revelations on the part of Facebook's attempted venture, outlining a tale of cultural difference and corporate greed. But while Bhatia's article may toll the bell on the specifics of what transpired behind the scenes in Zuckerberg's perhaps well-intentioned but misguided attempt at bringing Facebook to India, it begs further questions as to the nature of such contentious issues as net neutrality, information monopoly and personal accountability to one's own place in digital culture.

Bhatia's article presents an argument of excessive hubris on the part of Zuckerberg and the executives of Facebook, those outsiders who perceive themselves saviours of the rest of the world, but who, whether through good intentions or not, by misguided strategies end up doing more harm than good -- a point well outlined in the article:

"There was tone-deafness in the people who carried out the campaign, Nitin Pai, the co-founder of an influential policy thinktank named the Takshashila Institution, told me. You know that foreigners talking down to Indians and telling them what is good for them is going to backfire." 

Where Facebook had an opportunity to help introduce an initiative that was community-led, incorporating what it was that Indians collectively believed and actually needed based on Indian cultural and economic contexts, it decided to force its own hand instead, and as such missed the mark on what could have been a valuable opportunity for all involved.

To put it another way, "Facebook had succeeded, overwhelmingly, in making the larger ruling on net neutrality about itself. As Pahwa told me: Facebook came and shoved its ass in our faces."

But was the failure of Free Basic indeed just a misguided effort on the part of Zuckerberg and Facebook, in it only for themselves, held to a delusion of providing Universal Internet Access to India when they were so obviously pushing corporate advancement, or is there more at play in the Zuckurberg India affair than the article reveals?

As per the article, "Many of Facebooks supporters in India and abroad were aghast: why would a poor country reject the assistance of one of the worlds biggest and most powerful tech companies? Marc Andreessen, the powerful venture capitalist who sits on Facebooks board, contemptuously suggested a misguided resentment of the west was to blame. Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for India for decades, he told his 500,000 Twitter followers. Why stop now?"

Indeed. But perhaps that oft used "anti-colonialism" card is in fact nothing more than a scapegoat for "us" (who?) not having to address the fact that western powers have yet to face the vices of western arrogance that push assumed western and/or capitalist values on other cultures.

Instead, Andreessen might have taken a step back and asked, what is it that Facebook can learn from this? What is it that India actually needs?

Because of the abuse of the freedom of speech clause (Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution) in India by politicians, citizens in India are more acutely aware of the nuances of the law and personal responsibility than north americans and Europeans are of their place in digital citizenship. Perhaps in some ways, because of the complexity of the issues facing India, citizens are acutely 'digitally aware'.

Mark, being an astute businessman, should have seen this and taken account of it. Thus it comes as a surprise that he didn't understand this critical context when he went in with his Free Basic walled garden. What is most important to India in developing Universal Internet Access are issues of democracy and freedom of speech. Free Basics had nothing whatsoever to offer along those lines. 

Mark still has a lot to offer India. He could really bring something good to the table if he were to first step back to look at the cultural and political context leading up to the current climate in India and ask instead, "what is it that India actually wants...from an Indian perspective?", not, "how can I save India?". Perhaps this setback will be what he needs to really make a phenomenal effort to assist India rather than to try to capitalize on India.

As Bhatia's article points out, when the Facebook executive in question was asked "why the company had failed to heed the growing protests and carried on fighting so hard for Free Basics, he pointed to Zuckerbergs intense belief in Facebooks mission. This happens every time Facebook pushes out a new change, he said. New privacy settings? People protest, Facebook changes it just a little, and people get used to it. The same thing probably happened here. Mark would have thought people would get used to it."

Excessive Hubris? Perhaps. But Mark has a point. While India may have set a noble example of resistance to corporate influence and power, there has, to date, been very little pushback against Facebook's domineering agenda, despite the occasional privacy breach complaint. We'll all get used to it. We always do. 

But there's the crux. What Mark's statement actually implies, as such, is not so much that we'll "get used to it", but rather that we (again, who?) don't bother to follow it to begin with. Never mind those without access; if those of us with Internet Access were to utilize the digital skills and education available to us, we would perhaps be wiser to the nature of the ebb and flow of information monopolies.  

Who should be held accountable to the fact that corporations shape and define digital culture? When Internet giants such as Facebook come to determine the path and outcomes of critical issues such as net neutrality, who should we look to for answers? Perhaps the answer to that question need be a self-reflective venture.