On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:57 PM, parminder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Akshay > > I agree when you say > " For example, TRAI can issue a list of expectations like "political > neutrality, no censorship", etc for the category "social network"" > > That was the kind of thing I was driving at.... Basically when we expect > the regulator to come in and force the telcos to keep up some basic > standards of neutrality (which is what net neutrality is) why cant and > should not the regulator also step in to force platforms like facebook, > which certainly have much greater monopoly character, as well are much more > difficult to switch away from, than the telcos, to keep up some basic > standards of neutrality. > > As Praveen writes, a telco cannot be allowed to do partisan political > messaging over its infrastructure. > > But then in the later part of your email you seem to suggest that TRAI > putting any such expectations on social networks may not be ok becuase it > infringe freedom of expression of these platforms... Here I disagree with > your proposition that 'platforms are also people', which, since these > platforms are corporate entities, translates to saying "corporate are > people" and have corresponding human rights. I dont agree. > > Then you state that your basic problem comes from the difficulty in > figuring out, what and who it too big, to be regulated, and what is too > political, to be banned, and so on.... However, almost all socio-legal > issues involve such determinations, for which societies have elaborate > institutional mechanisms. There is no escape from it. If we were to avoid > legal approaches just because they involvs 'grey zones' than we will have > to put aside almost all of our legal-political structure. All of us would > be considerably worse off without it, that is, if we could even survive it.. > Actually, this is the ideal we want to achieve, far from being worse off, I think there is considerable reason - not mob sway - to prefer such an ideal of not just well-meaning, but well-equipped to actuate that meaning, people. And an enormous questions hangs over us: can we reach this ideal, while employing the tools used to perpetuate our barriers and divides? I believe Einstein commented to the effect that no problem can be solved by working in the environment that created the problem. And the story of Sisyphus is a textual description of a pair of asymptotes. Vickram > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 26 January 2016 08:36 AM, Akshay S Dinesh 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". 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. > 2) Organizations are no different from people. > 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. > > 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? 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?" > > 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. > > 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 > [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 > > -- Vickram Fool On The Hill <http://communicall.wordpress.com> " *He's still watching me watching you watching the trains go by. And the way he stares --- feel like locking my door and pulling my phone from the wall. His eyes, like lights from a laser, burn making my hair stand --- making the goose-bumps crawl.*" Jethro Tull: Watching Me Watching You (1982)
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
