Anil Ambani having the same rights as Akshay or Praveen is democracy. Should
Reliance have the same rights as Praveen or Akshay?
On 2016, ജനുവരി 26 10:03:09 AM IST, Pirate Praveen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>As per your logic, airtel, idea, etc all telecom providers should be
>allowed to express their partisanship. How about they playing political
>ads before each call we make?
>
>On 2016, ജനുവരി 26 9:56:54 AM IST, Pirate Praveen
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>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
>
>--
>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
--
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
