On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Akshay S Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > > First, understand that we have made a government for ourselves, it is not the other way around. What it does is what we have made a covenant to allow it to do, presumably (well, it says so) in the common interest. Further down, you asked, who authorised the auctions, and it was the government, in response to the Supreme Court affirming that the airwaves belong to us, not to the government, hence it has to steward them in the public interest. Which it is still not doing, note, otherwise we would not have such a poor showing in terms of data coverage across the country. What we have done is abandon the job to telcos (public and private sector), as though the task of providing data connectivity is solely theirs. In fact, they don't even have the expertise, since that grew in a different business, which had different imperatives. And some of the most outstanding expertise, in certain ways, is to be found in the genuine 'public' sector, that of small and not so small tech groups and community social experimenters, who have not just built robust networks without 'big' involvement (although the presence of some 'bigs', such as Google, is often seen), but have done so as a form of evolving integration with its community. Which also answers your query about social institutions such as Facebook, which have grown due to extraordinary funding from largely the private sector, extraordinary because the business plan did not foresee profits in the near term at all, and perhaps the foreseeable term. What it did see, of course, is insane valuations, another form of profit, but one that is fed by the gold rush mentality, until the company starts actually doing business, in the traditional sense. Because business is something we think we understand, and build regulations around, as an important part of our social structure. But this is something different. Even the trappings of organisation are different, because they don't actually want to play by the 'rules', they want to forge them. I assume that Zuckerberg has some fellow visionaries working with him, of course, otherwise change they to he, etc. Entities like this promise more than financial returns to their early supporters. It is interesting that the same communities that have forged viable data networks are the ones that (among others, and not all communities are physical and involve meetings) also champion free software and the use of software itself to build human-respecting social networks. And it is a real pity that the social polity in India remains fairly unaware of their existence, which is partly why the only such entities/services mentioned in this thread seem to be Orkut and Facebook. It is also a pity that the Supreme Court is unable to grapple with the reality that the stewardship of the airwaves in India remains woefully short of expectations - not yours or mine, or that of the Chief Justice, but that of the scope of the use of this common resource. Neither in the ultra-cheap (FM) edge device nor in the next step, be it phone or tablet or netbook or the plethora of shared public service devices that could have reached out to the ragged edge of India's needy, never mind us super-elites. But if we aren't able to find ways to make that clear to the Court, we shouldn't be pointing fingers at the government alone. Forget the Court, it doesn't seem to be particularly clear here either. > > > > 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 > -- 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
