EU recently undertook a "Public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the collaborative economy"
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries-data-and-cloud A year an half back the French Digital Council issues an excellent report on 'platform neutrality' see http://www.cnnumerique.fr/en/platform-neutrality-building-an-open-and-sustainable-digital-environment/ parminder On Tuesday 26 January 2016 06:36 PM, parminder wrote: > 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
