A
recent news story about Facebook's efforts to launch an initiative in
India called "Free Basics" caught my interest, especially after reading
Fuchs and autonomous Marxism (especially exploitation) that he points to that are an integral part of social media sites. According to this
article,
“Free
Basics is a pet project of CEO Mark Zuckerberg that brings limited
Internet use to those who would otherwise not be able to afford it.
Originally launched as Internet.org, the service is available in over
30 countries.”
The
service provides free internet access, but is channeled
through Facebook and allows users to only access certain sites and
information. A second article describes Free Basics as “a
lightning rod for critics who
say it actually gets in the way of a free and open Internet, creating
a walled garden favoring Facebook and a small number of online
venues. Others have accused Facebook, the world's largest social
network, of forcing companies to offer their services at no cost”.
An
Indian regulatory agency, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(TRAI), is collecting opinions from Indians about the Free Basics
program. Zuckerberg (via Facebook of course) launched a campaign of
support called “Save Free Basics” that provided skewed
information and inundated the TRAI with 16 million e-mails sent from
a template he provided.
So,
we ask ourselves, why is Zuckerberg and Facebook so intent on “giving
the internet for free” to the people of India? "We
are committed to Free Basics and to working with Reliance and the
relevant authorities to help people in India get connected," a
Facebook spokesperson said. Could it be that
adding multiple millions of prosumers to the Facebook factory could
enrich Facebook exponentially, bringing in considerably more value to the Facebook corporation than
the (minimal) cost of setting up Free Basics? As Castells notes, those in power "have made it their priority to harness the potential of mass communication in the service of their specific interests" (Fuchs:76). Exploitation,
anyone?
Hey Jo-Dee, I was working on the same story. I suspect Free Basics is part of a long term Facebook strategy whereby they can crack the biggest social media market outside North America. India has a steadily growing online economy that must seem very tempting to Facebook hence their interest. Indeed, Facebook's Free Basics venture may seem like a neocolonial attempt to dominate the market there.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article and based on our interaction with autonomous Marxist ideas in the first half of our course, I can see validity in your concerns of extending prosumer exploitation to the a huge population like that of India. Where my concerns arise is in the creation of a 'free' Internet service for India (made available via Facebook) -- why free? Why is internet free to some but not others, like most North Americans who pay monthly for access to Internet? Who does Zuckerberg foresee as using this free internet platform? You're right, Jo-Dee, there must be some larger reason for such benign goodwill coming from world's largest social media site. This then raises another question--who are these people that are not yet inundated into a cognitive capitalist machine of prosumer and affect labour? What specific use do the intended receipients hold for Facebook? It reminds me of Hardt and Negri and their description of post-Fordist capitalism as the new global order in which people are inextricably linked to neoliberal processes and further to Purikka's critical questioning of coding as being a creative industry that is simply a synecdoche for cognitive capitalism. Horkheimer and Adorno sum up this idea nicely when they say "something is provided for all so that none may escape" and indeed Facebook providing 'free' Internet to may be a good example of cognitive capitalism in action.
ReplyDeleteI think that the discussion here has raised some very important points. As Jo-Dee and Aynin have noted the potential for exploitation as a result of such an endeavour is massive. As Karly has noted such an expansion is part of the Empire that Hardt and Negri realize. The issue of how and why that Empire is realized, at a more micro level (still a very broad position however) has yet to be addressed. It would seem that the norm within telecommunications companies (extending this term to include virtual mediators of information such as Google or Facebook) is that of working in a market where there are few places that can be easily expanded to. Or to put it differently: the West has already been won. As a result the goal for many of these companies now is to achieve a critical mass of users (often at the expense of their competitors). Once a mass is accomplished competitors seem likely to fall or be subsumed by the larger company which may lead to monopoly practices. As a result the idea of quite literally providing the physical infrastructure for an entire population seems like a logical step for an organization with the vast resources that are available to Facebook. Doing so would expand its user base and provide immediate exploitative potential. Additionally Facebook’s market share would grow considerably as a result of forcing more users into the market which they have exclusive control over. As a result their competition in the West will be weakened thus potentially strengthening Facebook’s economic and political position. So… to bring my little rant back to the point: I want to build on what has already been said and suggest that this endeavour by Facebook might additionally be understood as an attempt to build the foundation for a potential monopoly within the telecommunication industry.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting thread - you've all raised some good points about this "Free Basics", and I too am curious about the exploitative nature of providing free internet for some rather than others.
ReplyDeleteI also was immediately brought back to Frith's discussion of determinist views when considering technology adoption in other parts of the world. While I can appreciate internet access being a more global entity and a possible attempt to bridge the digital divide, it is also important to remember that other parts of the world will have very different uses for the Internet than we may. While Facebook may be trying to monopolize in the telecommunication industry, I find the way they have chosen to do so very intriguing. Though I suppose there is no outright, vocalized assumption by Facebook that those they now provide Free Basics to will use it in any certain way, I fear that they may have some Western essentialist views on what should be done with this new free Internet and what development should come of it, without properly taking cultural and affective differences fully into account.