> No, facebook is not just a technical thing, it is a social fact, a social > structure. And a big one at that. And so the advantage is > social-structural, and subject to legal/regulatory examination and checks. > The functionalities that facebook employed for this campaign in its own > favour are not available to other users, to be used on and trough facebook, > who may want to promote a different point of view on the same political > question of net neutrality and zero rating. In fact the manner in facebook > did this political campaign in its own favour is an exemplary instantiation > of why free basics is such a bad thing.....
Okay, I missed this paragraph in your earlier mail. I think I understand why I feel different here. The way I look at Internet services, Facebook is just a technical thing. It was Orkut yesterday, it is Facebook today, and it should get replaced tomorrow by something else. But, I can look at it the way you look at it - legitimize Facebook as a "social structure". Yes, when police department uses Facebook statuses to arrest people or when courts use these as evidence it means that Facebook is being legitimized as a representation of people. Maybe I should then stop looking at these Internet services like a hacker and start looking at it like a social reality. Of course, the confusion arises in my mind on how legitimate to consider Internet services as social structures because Internet is very young and growing very large and laws are only slowly taking shape. But yes, a mindset shift towards considering the Internet services as an integral part of human existence is due. I will just elucidate a bit more what that means. It means, Facebook/Twitter/WhatsApp/etc can be used as *official* communication media by public institutions. It means that Facebook messages can be used in place of letters in official situations, that Facebook page posts can be used in place of circulars and notifications. I am not sure I can articulate the thought I'm having at this moment, but I'll still try. Internet is an integral part of human life. But is Internet based services so? A public department can have an official website. Emails can be used as official communication medium. But can Facebook be used in the same sense? Can a Facebook page be "official"? Can Facebook messages be used as official communication medium? I have always been under the impression that no matter how large Facebook (or WhatsApp or something similar) grows, they can never become "official" (in the sense that they cannot be considered integral part of Government and public life). I have always thought that Facebook (and other Internet services) will always remain "unofficial" or informal. I think you understand the difference I hold in my mind. I think Governments can say "follow our official website for updates", but I do not imagine Governments saying "follow our official Facebook page for updates" just like that. -- Now, what you're forcing me into thinking is to think of Facebook as having legitimate position in social structure. That would mean the Government and the public approves of Facebook as a valid, legitimate representation of real life, real people, real government, real democracy. I hope that explains why my mindset is the way it is now (considering Facebook not as a social structure) Bottom line is, can TRAI intervene into Facebook's behaviour without legitimizing Facebook as an integral part of the social structure? Or, does TRAI's intervention itself make Facebook legitimate? > > 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. The difference here between Telecoms and Facebook being that the Government has already recognized the electromagnetic spectrum, communication through it, and telecom service providers as a legitimate social thing. So, the Government has the authority/right to intervene when it is misused. After all, who gave Government the right to auction the spectrum? So, the question probably boils down to this. Who owns the Internet? My answer is that the Internet is not owned by the Government (or any regulator) and therefore they cannot have any say on what content goes or not on any website on the Internet (including Facebook). If I understand you correctly, your answer is that the public facing Internet is owned by the Government (or any regulator) and they can decide what happens on it. Am I right here? (Or, is there any other way you can justify TRAI imposing a requirement on Facebook?) I think one other way you can justify a regulator imposing requirements on Facebook is by considering Facebook as a business and legalizing (or illegalizing) things based on that. For example, you can consider revoking a hypothetical "business license" of Facebook. But how does this actually work on the Internet? I think we've gone a full circle here. Wasn't this what TRAI asked in its first consultation paper? "Licensing of over-the-top services". I unequivocally stated that there should be no such licensing. What did you tell TRAI? (Most of my thoughts are still unformed. Continue this exercise please) Akshay _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
