Subject: [gaia] Fwd: Re: [ciresearchers] FW: [JNC - Forum] Facebook's free basics shenanigans

From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:43:11 +0000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Jan 2016 01:04
Subject: Re: [ciresearchers] FW: [JNC - Forum] Facebook's free basics
shenanigans
To: <[email-masked]>, "Michael Gurstein" <
[email-masked]>
Cc:

Apologies in advance for the length of this email however given Net
neutrality is a such a hot topic of multiple perspectives I fear the voices
of those most impacted by this FB initiative might not be heard above those
of vested and political interest. What follows is my experience within the
Australian social ecosystem and matches experience with similar Sri Lankan,
Thai and Vietnamese community initiatives.

At the end of the day all of those living in poverty want the same things,
but mostly to be heard.

During the late 90’s I had the enormous privilege of working with a
marvellous team of people (including several former members of this e-list)
building Australia's first non-profit rural ISP / POP network. We turned
what was deemed at the time an improbable and unsustainable concept into
reality; to connect remote and poor people over vast distances to the ‘net.

And expectedly critics then as now raised all sorts of objections as to why
our project was 'wrong' (because we couldn't offer the bandwidth of our
urban cousins. Because we throttled access to very heavy media sites for
the benefit of the majority in knowledge that continued evolution and
growth would ultimately lead to greater development and expanded access.
Because we used a proxy to limit and better distribute our precious
bandwidth. Because we "should" have been helping other people, not the
needy of this geographically isolated continent etc. etc.

Yet despite the critics and criticisms we made it happen and today, two
decades later we still enjoy all the marvelous stories of how so many
people who had never seen the Internet previously were able to use our
albeit limited and filtered connectivity for life changing growth and
experiences. They built opportunity. They found and conversed with lost
friends and relatives. They engaged with people of indigenous languages
thought lost to them. They communed with the fledgling global community.
They built commons. They sold local crafts and wares. They grew and
developed. Many of these people still thank me when I pass them on the
street more than two decades later.

And expectedly, as we opened this door to opportunity new providers entered
the market. Today the connectivity options of these community's are as
broad as those of the rest of the continent.

Critics of the Indian Facebook initiative need to walk a mile in the
poverty shoe; to position themselves in the place of FB's living, breathing
beneficiaries. Critics need to not only see what it’s like to live isolated
and in poverty but to properly understand what it is to be in this
connected world yet lack the basic tools of participation. Critics have
opportunity; the fact they post here and elsewhere demonstrates this. Those
being helped by FB had no such opportunity.

Is it fear that leads some people to seek to take this away or ignorance of
the enormity of opportunity that poor people can gain?

I suspect critics also miss the point of just why ICT’s in the communal
context are so vitally important. Community Development in poverty stricken
environs is first and foremost a process of building social capital.
Economic development is just so dependent on this as it's reliant on far
more than unfettered access to the 'net. Experience teaches time and again
that community development is underpinned by the effective use of tools
that enhance community reciprocity, the development of altruistic environs,
the construction of commons and ongoing development of social norms
supportive of growth. Top of the list is the ability for people to
participate in networks; the development of interlocking relationships
between people and groups.

We know the growth of jobs and wealth are reliant on these social aspects
yet time and again they are forgotten or ignored by those who would
critique development undertakings. My understanding of the Indian FB
initiative is it's all about developing social capital. The concept being
that economic development will follow as a natural progression. Consider
the mother from an impoverished small rural community whose daughter moves
to the city to work and send money back home (as so many do). What value to
this family to be able to commune with each other across vast distances
free of charges on FB chat? This is life changing stuff. Consider the
Greenberg Index suggesting that any two Indian nationals selected at random
will have different native languages 93% of the time. How empowering for
these people to be able to network with others from the same language base
(we enjoy the same gains in Australia for people from our +350 indigenous
languages and dialects). This single aspect easily leads to opportunity.

I live in a small rural community now heavily impacted by Facebook and over
the past few years have witnessed numerous innovations by local residents
who developed FB sites specifically for the purpose of building communal
commons. One notable example is our FB Community Marketplace that now
attracts a membership of 2/3 our total district population. Prior to
development of this particular e-commons most or our locals (as elsewhere)
were reliant on expensive external suppliers for much of their daily
purchases. A far from insignificant portion of local income was spent on
basic needs outside our community with distant and usually foreign owned
suppliers. With the introduction of the FB e-commons many of our locals now
trade a wide range of goods and services locally. Income and opportunity
are now enabled from within, not from without.

We are currently evaluating the net value of the FB e-commons to our
community and preliminaries suggest it is in the order of millions of
dollars pa that is now retained locally rather than being spent elsewhere.
Other examples include a local FB site that disseminates emergency
information (floods and fires etc.). A site that helps reunite owners with
lost livestock and pets. Another that promotes locally community events.
These are all commons built and managed locally and together provide
tremendous value towards the ongoing development of our communal social
capital - and similar concepts and developments are increasingly replicated
in community's across the globe.

What I truly hope is that activists working against the Indian FB
initiative consider entering into consultation with stakeholders rather
than this constant bickering and language of a “war” between what are in
truth nothing more than differing ideological perspectives. There is no
“war”; there is only a difference of opinion mostly born of ignorance.
Critics must accept that there are benefits to this proposal and that
attempts to stop or subvert the project will only harm a great many people.

Well done Facebook for keeping the innovative pioneering spirit of ‘net
development alive and using your strengths to help those less fortunate.
There are those of us who understand what you are doing and support the
effort. Let's all of us continue to work together to help lift the world
from poverty.

Don

---- Michael Gurstein <[email-masked]> wrote:

=============

*From:* Forum [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *
parminder
*Sent:* December 30, 2015 6:08 AM
*To:* Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <[email-masked]>
*Subject:* [JNC - Forum] Facebook's free basics shenanigans

As you would perhaps be aware, there is a big war going on right now in
India on net neutrality regulation front. The regulator has launched a
consultation paper specifically on zero/ differential rating of Internet
services, and Facebook has responded by a blitzkrieg of a campaign,
spending millions of dollars . There are double full page ads in newspapers
and big billboard all around asking people to support Free Basics in the
name of 'digital equality'. Much more controversially, they have used the
Facebook social media platform to ask FB subscribers to sign on template
emails to the regulator in favour of allowing Free Basics kind of services.
Such emails now reportedly number more than 5 million. (I am thinking of
separately taking it up with regulator, who also has content/ media related
competence, that Facebook misused its special media/ platform position to
launch a political campaign in its own favour, in a manner which was not
available for an adversary to do on the FB platform, and that this should
be considered an inappropriate practice, and in this context a new
consultation on 'platform neutrality' should be launched. Apologies for
this detour.)

Below is an oped article by Prabir in The Hindu today on this issue

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/nothing-free-or-basic-about-it/article8042334.ece

Earleir Mishi wrote another article on the issue along with Eben Moglen

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/facebook-myths-and-the-facts-about-free-basics-distortion-again-292590.html

parminder

To unsubscribe (subscribe) send an email to: [email-masked] with the
message unsub (sub) ciresearchers