Let us look at it from another angle. Under FCRA, no contributions can be made for a campaign that is political or pertaining to policy. Nor can an organization receiving FCRA conduct such a campaign. So if Facebook gave money to an organization to do the campaign it has done (policy intervention), that would be illegal. But it can conduct a Rs. 1,000 crore (yes, I believe that this is what the campaign spent) campaign for changing India's policies, while arguing that it is an American company and not subject to Indian law. Does it mean what is barred for NGO's is allowed tp foreign companies? This is not platform abuse, which is a regulatory issue. Another question on platform abuse. If a platform is built to provide certain services, can it be used for other purposes than stated in the contract the platform has with its users? I would ask the lawyers in this thread to read the Facebook contract for this.
Prabir On 23 January 2016 at 06:23, Akshay S Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:14 PM, parminder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > This is a very important issue. When the current net neutrality and Free > Basics storm passes, and we have a better idea about what side is govt > tilting towards, some of us plan to write a letter asking TRAI to look into > this case of 'platform abuse' by Facebook... Remember, TRAI has competence > both in matters of infrastructure as well as content (it issues > recommendations on media as well). > > > > Comment and/ or support is welcome.. > > > > I would be careful about which parts of Facebook's campaign we call > platform abuse. > > Showing the user a notification drawing their attention to an issue > that a website believes in is not platform abuse. If that's the case, > Wikipedia did platform abuse for SOPA, reddit does it for many things, > Mozilla does it on their homepage, Google does it on their home page, > etc. > > Making one-click emails possible from a throw-away email address is > not platform abuse. It just shows that Facebook is technically capable > to circumvent spam filters. Yes, they would have had an unfair > advantage since they are a platform where people already have > accounts. But, that's only a technical advantage. > > Pre-composing a template response is not platform abuse. Even > #savetheinternet did that. > > Spending millions on ads is not platform abuse either. > > The abuse Facebook did is on TRAI's consultation process in what TRAI > themselves describes correctly as "reducing this meaningful > consultative exercise designed to produce informed decisions in a > transparent manner into a crudely majoritarian and orchestrated > opinion poll". > > So, it became a platform abuse only when Facebook did what is okay > (showing notifications, sending emails on behalf of others) to do > something that is not okay (not informing people of what the > consultation process is, disrupting the process). > > The irony is not lost on me that if Facebook decides to show > notifications to vote in favor of a political party, it would not be > abusing anything, but rather just taking part in the "crudely > majoritarian and orchestrated opinion poll" that we call democracy. > And I don't think TRAI will have the moral authority (if not > technical) over whether networks can convey a political message to its > users. > > Lots of depth to go into these thoughts. Thanks for deciding to pursue > it, Parminder. > > Akshay > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
