Social media platforms, like Facebook, increase in value as their user base increases. Their value is therefore limited to the point of the entire population of the world. Facebook aspires to reach this goal. This past year Facebook has been gloating about their work towards fulfilling their promise of connecting everybody who has access to a mobile device via the internet. The company extends this promise with the goal of allowing everybody “to share their creativity, ideas, and passions with the world” (Facebook for Developers, 2015). They plan to implement this goal with their partner Internet.org, using their joint service named “Free Basics.”
There exists a number of controversial and problematic aspects with this. Aside the fact that the Internet.org platform violates net neutrality in that it limits its networking capacities to the Facebook platform, there exists capitalistic goals beneath their social equity rhetoric. The first is that Facebook uses this partnership with the aim of expanding its user base to reach the most unconnected market in the world. Although promoted on the premise that everybody in the world should have an opportunity communicate and share their ideas online, the underlying premise is that Facebook’s user base is growing globally to reach untouched markets and this is becoming increasingly attractive to advertisers and third party interest groups.
Internet.org recently expanded thier platform allowing independant developers to create their own unique applications to be used in the newly branded Free Basic service. There, however, exists restrictions in the platform architecture, ensuring compatibility with specific mobile devices (Samsung, Nokia and Qualcomm to name a few). Indeed, this empowers different users to have the ability to contribute to this “not-for-profit effort.” It, however, encourages external developers to contribute to the success of Internet.org’s platform, without directly paying them for their work. The external developers who are being called to “Build for the People,” are being exploited.
Overall, the Free Basics service assists Facebook in exploiting a greater user base than any other social media platform. It also exploits its application developers by inviting them to contribute to their not-for-profit platform, while simultaneously making a profit from selling the aggregated data produced from said applications. Furthermore, it limits these developers to follow the very rigid guidelines for application engineering, allowing the power to continue to lie in the hands of Facebook and Internet.org.
The problematic intentions of Facebook have not gone unnoticed. India banned the Free Basics service last week. It will be interesting to see if other countries follow suit, or if they are convinced by the for the people rhetoric with for the profit intentions.
Facebook for Developers, (2015, March 15). What’s Free Basics Platform? [Video File] Retrieved from https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org
Maria, your post made me think of Tarleton Gillespie’s “The politics of ‘platforms’”. Accordingly, I want to extend your analysis by framing Facebook’s Free Basics Platform in some of Gillespie’s terms.
ReplyDeleteGillespie (2010) claims “online content providers” (OCPs) are discursively positioning themselves in relation to users, clients, advertisers, and policymakers in order to shape how “the information landscape should be understood” (p. 347). “Platform” is one term that exemplifies this discursive work. In this context, the term “platform” relies on a semantic richness that emerges from “four semantic territories that the word ‘platform’… signified in the past” – computational, architectural, figurative, and political (p. 349).
Free Basics is closer to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) than an OCP because it provides smartphone users with free internet access to a range of basic websites, apps, and services (e.g. news, health, and education). Nevertheless, the discursive construction of Free Basics relies on the four semantic territories of the term “platform”. First, Free Basics relies on the computational meaning of platform, which refers to “infrastructure that supports the design and use of particular applications” (p. 349). Free Basics is framed not only as the infrastructure that will “provide people with a set of free basic services”, but also as supporting the design of websites by providing “resources that can help you build and adapt your website for Free Basics”. Second, Free Basics relies on the architectural meaning of platform, which refers to “a raised level surface on which people or things can stand” (p. 349). While Free Basics is open about its technical restrictions, they frame these restrictions as allowing equal access: “[t]o ensure that Free Basics is accessible to all, we focus on supporting lightweight mobile websites”. (The difference between OCPs and Free Basic in this case would be that the former purport to facilitate equal expression (p. 352), whereas the latter claims to facilitate equal access.) Third, Free Basics uses the figurative meaning of platform, which refers to “a position achieved or situation brought about which forms the basis for further achievement” (p. 350). In their pitch to apps, websites, and services, Free Basics draws on the figurative sense of platform by claiming that “[a]dd[ing] your website to Free Basics” will: (1) “[g]row your audience by providing affordable access to your services”, and (2) “[s]cale your social impact”. Fourth, Free Basics draws from the political meaning of platform, which designates a “place from which to speak and be heard” (p. 352). In particular, Free Basics claims that “anyone can add their website to the Free Basics Platform” (i.e. speaking) with the potential to “[r]each millions of new internet users” (i.e. being heard).
As Gillespie notes, the kind of discursive work surrounding the term “platform” shapes what we think these technologies are and what we think should be expected of them. Although Free Basics is closer to an ISP than an OCP, it still relies on the four semantic territories of “platform” in order to appeal to users, clients, and governments. (It is not immediately clear how, if at all, Facebook is using the language surrounding Free Basics to appeal to advertisers. Perhaps someone else can address this issue in the comments). While India rejected Facebook’s Free Basics Platform, I agree with Maria that it will be interesting to examine the discursive elements of responses to Free Basics from other nations.