On 2016, ജനുവരി 26 8:36:52 AM IST, Akshay S Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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). >> >> >> But then going by your logic, why should the second thing be not >ok... Any >> political player - if you are going to make no distinctions between >> different types - have a right to be partisan. It can give its >followers >> what information it wants to give and not give what it does not want >to. do >> we not all do such kind of things... The problem here therefore is >the >> extent of structural social power enjoyed by a particular party, >which in >> this case cna be called as 'platform power'. >> > >I think we will then have to define something that sounds like >"reasonable expectations" from any platform. For example, if a >platform's goal and motto in life is to support a political party, >they can "reasonably be expected" to show messages in support of that >political party. But, if, in the terms of service, etc. the platform >makes it clear that it will not be political, then we can reasonably >expect them to not show messages in support of any political party. > >If we can ask TRAI to force platforms into thus bringing out terms of >service style legal documents where each platform can define what is >"reasonable expectation" from them, including disclosures, political >leanings, funding, attitude, the way decisions are made, values, and >so on. If such a document can be mandated, then we can point out when >a platform goes against its own terms of service. > >For example, Facebook can be reasonably expected not to censor the >posts made by its users. If Facebook violates that expectation, they >are to be punished. I think this is called "anti-trust".
You are mistaken about what is anti-trust. We got to understand monopolies to understand anti-trust. When you use your dominance in one market to gain unfair advantage in other markets, then its anti-trust. So Microsoft bundling internet explorer want anti-trust but apple bundling Safari was not. Even though operating systems and web browsers were different markets apple did not have a monopoly in os market, but microsoft had. So even if all apple users were given Safari, Netscape had a large market left for its browser. But when Microsoft bundled ie, there was no market left for Netscape. See http://m.wisegeek.org/what-are-antitrust-laws.htm What you are referring here is breach of contract. >Google is >reasonably expected to show the most relevant results for search >terms. If they manually change the order such that some competitor's >website is lower down the search results than it should have been, it >is "breach of trust", "violating reasonable expectation", or "platform >abuse". > >I said the platform itself has to write down their terms of service >and what is expected from them. Maybe it is also possible for TRAI to >define various platforms and what it expects from any particular >service that has to work in that category. For example, TRAI can issue >a list of expectations like "political neutrality, no censorship", etc >for the category "social network" and since Facebook would be >operating as a social network, they can be mandated to fulfil those >expectations. > >I think I know why I'm imagining such a complicated solution. > >>> 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. >> >> As argued above, I disagree... Would you be ok if google in the >election >> days begins to show a partisan political message next to its search >bar? >> This is what you are claiming to be ok, and arguing that law/ >regulation can >> have no moral authority to stop... >> > >I have the following beliefs: >1) Internet organizations are no different from offline organizations. Fine. >2) Organizations are no different from people. No, not correct. Organizations are formed with rules. In US, corporates are considered persons making them more powerful to lobby. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood >3) Organizations must have most of the same rights as people - like >freedom of expression. >4) People must be able to voice their support or oppose of any >particular thing - no matter how powerful and influential they are. >5) By extension, organizations must also be able to be partisan. > >For example, newspapers are partisan. They have hidden censorship. >There are political affiliations. The news, the tone of the news, the >positioning of the news, etc influence people in different intentional >ways. But facebook is more like a carrier/courier than a newspaper. Facebook is more like your DTH provider like Tata Sky. The rules for DTH providers are different than TV channels. >Because, the way I look at it, these organizations and platforms are >run by people. And people are partisan. Most platforms start small. >They are probably started by individuals. For example, Zuckerberg >might have started Facebook. It was a dating kind of site when it >started. When he starts such a site, Zuckerberg has the complete >control over what goes on it and what doesn't. For example, if he >chooses to give only two fields for gender - male and female, it is >his right, his opinion being stated on his website. > >What you say is, when a platform becomes sufficiently large, it has to >stop being opinionated. I have difficulty in agreeing with this >because this is too much in the shades of grey. How large can a >platform be before it has to be neutral? Should the DTH companies be allowed to be partisan? > How neutral should a platform >be? What colours can they use? What words can they use? I could even >go on to imagine this convoluted example: "There are political parties >that thrive by making people think less. People think less when >they're watching videos rather than when they are reading text. So, do >platforms that show videos more than text act in favour of this >think-less party?" You are conflating DTH with a TV channel. You are asking for TV channel rights for DTH providers. >I could be settling for a cognitively simpler solution here because of >my ability to think in such shades of grey, but nevertheless, I think >the following is ideal: > >Platforms are people too. Platforms can be partisan. Everything in the >world is partisan. Influential people influence people. If that seems >to be wrong, then it is democracy that is wrong. But that shouldn't be >wrong. That's how democracy has always been. Democracy is about >winning people. That platforms can wrongly influence people must be >counteracted not by silencing platforms, but by giving voice to >alternate platforms. Silencing cannot work. There is no need for >silencing either. Human beings have always been like this. They >influence and get influenced. That gives a purpose to life. If >everyone acted rationally, it would have been much better, but much >boring. > >Yes, I'm arguing for allowing platforms to be partisan just so it can >become interesting to fight against them. I am probably too young. You are considering DTH providers as TV channels. >But I do believe that if we can protect everyone's voice (by opposing >things like Free Basics) partisan platforms will continue to make the >world interesting. > >I am deeply interested in your counter points here. > >Akshay >_______________________________________________ >network mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
