> 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. >
Okay. This makes sense. > 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. I think the difference between telecos, automobiles, pharma, etc. and Internet services (the difference that keeps me take a different stance on regulation of them) is that I find it difficult to find/create alternatives in the former while on the Internet I find "competition is just a click away" (as stated in the French report you linked) I think I think like this because I am a technical person who can switch social networks easily and that is also the reason why I said earlier that I see Facebook only as a "technical" thing. But, yes, I can understand that with experience of how a vast majority of the public use Internet (like what you have from IT for Change), I might be able to think of Internet services as social structures that needs regulation. > 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/ > Thanks for this link. Very very helpful. I now think there is also a pessimism in my mind towards Indian regulators, Government which biases my opinion in the need for regulation. I think that Indian regulators will not be capable to implement neutrality requirements neutrally. We might need a regulator for the regulator to ensure that they regulate all platforms equally. What if Facebook can hoodwink TRAI into accepting how Facebook works but Twitter/Diaspora fails to. That would be a disaster. In my (admittedly pessimistic) assumptions, an Indian regulator of the Internet will create more problems than it can solve. And I also believe that permission-less innovation on the Internet will help in sorting out problems on its own. But I could very well be wrong. The fact that Google has been a monopoly for so many years without getting replaced should actually prove me wrong. Maybe Facebook will not be replaced by something else like it replaced Orkut/Myspace. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote: > First, understand that we have made a government for ourselves, it is not > the other way around. I think it is this simple fact that I'm finding difficult to believe in. Yes, governments were made by people for the people and are of the people. But is it so? I have only seen people having to struggle with their government in India. I do not think the Indian government can be called "for people". And that's where all the difference lies. Before we let the Government (or a regulator) take control of the Internet, we have to take control of the Government (or the regulator). I believe even in the net neutrality consideration, the Government is trying to intervene and influence the decision that TRAI is making. So, even if it is not a democratic Government, but an independent regulator (like TRAI) who will be regulating the Internet, I think the very fact that the Internet becomes "regulatable" will open it up to Government interference. And in the Indian democracy, I do not believe in. Akshay _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
