On Tuesday 26 January 2016 02:22 PM, Akshay S Dinesh 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.
Let me begin by a definition of the Internet quoted by Eben Moglen in an
old article
"That scholarly and popular writing alike denominate as a thing ("the
Internet") /*is actually the name of a social condition*/: the fact that
everyone in the network society is connected directly, without
intermediation, to everyone else." (emphasis added)
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/684/594
It is that sense I say that social networks are social structures. Any
social phenomenon which is sufficiently large and significant, and
entrenched and stable, to be able to constrain and enable social
interactions is a social structure. Facebook certainly is one today. We
dont need governments to sanction something as a social structure.
Institutions like governments and markets are embedded in the larger
ecology of social structures, thy do not determine it. And it need not
be in any special way 'formal' to be social structure.
I know this logic is used that 'since' telcos use public spectrum
'therefore' governments can regulate them. This is a specious logic,
invited by Internet enthusiasts who are generally anti regulation but
now find asking for a regulation, net neutrality regulation. Well, by
the same logic, Internet services, which use telco infrastructure which
uses public spectrum, can be regulated... Finally, there is no facebook,
without it travelling over public spectrum (or public right of way)...
No, a thing to be regulated need not be owned by government or
public.... It must only be considered socially significant to require
certain kind of regulation... For instance automobile and pharma
industries, both almost entirely private sector, are highly regulated.
As for your question
"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? "
First of all, the consultation was not on licensing of over the top
services , it was on 'Regulatory framework for OTT services' (within
which there was a question whether OTT services should be licensed).. My
response was, OTT services should not be licences, but a regulatory
framework may at some needed to be considered for some kind of possible
abuses..
parminder
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
