> I was contacted by the Indian Journal of Law and Technology to see whether I > could write something on similar lines, focused on the situation in India. > Well, it took two years, but we've finally published it: "Securing Privacy > Without Monopoly In India: Juxtaposing Interoperability With Indian Data > Protection": > > https://www.ijlt.in/post/securing-privacy-without-monopoly-in-india-juxtaposing-interoperability-with-indian-data-protection
This part about Facebook's "Free Basics" scheme in the paper is something I have been curious about for a while. >From the paper (emphasis mine): > Facebook has aggressively courted tie-ups with mobile phone companies and > ISPs (Internet Service Providers) in developing nations for its “Free Basics” > scheme, in which it offers a subsidy to a telecommunications operator in > exchange for preferential network treatment for Facebook and > Facebook-selected services, usually in the form of exempting Facebook > services from customers’ data caps. Facebook claims that this network > discrimination is benign and offers access to economically disadvantaged > users who might otherwise ration their internet access, but *the research is > clear that the primary users of these subsidies are affluent professionals > who become habituated to using Facebook and the services it includes in its > zero-tariff package*. Not coincidentally, those users are also highly prized > by the advertisers on whom Facebook relies for its revenues. It is easy to figure out what Facebook gets from the zero-rating scheme, but I've been curious about how (if at all) it benefits its primary users. And the part in the paper about the primary users of Free Basics being affluent professionals did not seem right. The actual report the paper links to says this about zero-rating schemes: http://a4ai.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MeasuringImpactsofMobileDataServices_ResearchBrief2.pdf > WHO IS USING ZERO-RATING? > This group was overall twice as likely to have little to no primary school > education, compared to > users of other mobile data services; however, 42% of these users reported > having at least some > college education. Our survey also showed no difference in the likelihood of > males or females > having ever used a zero-rated service, or using zero-rating as their primary > means of accessing > the Internet. Finally, and somewhat unsurprisingly, this group also spent the > least on weekly > data purchases — 38% of respondents who reported using zero-rated services as > their primary > means of accessing the Internet spent less than US$2/week on data, the lowest > among all > types of users. It does not change the gist of the paper in any way, but if anything, it leaves me more conflicted than before about zero-rating schemes. :) Venky (The Second) On Wed, 24 May 2023, at 12:09 PM, Udhay Shankar N via Silklist wrote: > > TIL that Cory Doctorow (who's on this list, as longtime members will recall) > published a paper in the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, with some > NLSIU collaborators. Since we have lots of people interested in tech policy > (as well as lots of lawyers, including NLSIU grads, as well as Cory himself) > on this list, I thought it would be interesting to see what the folks here > think. > > Udhay > > <q> > > I was contacted by the Indian Journal of Law and Technology to see whether I > could write something on similar lines, focused on the situation in India. > Well, it took two years, but we've finally published it: "Securing Privacy > Without Monopoly In India: Juxtaposing Interoperability With Indian Data > Protection": > > https://www.ijlt.in/post/securing-privacy-without-monopoly-in-india-juxtaposing-interoperability-with-indian-data-protection > > The Indian case for interop incorporates the US and EU case, but with some > fascinating wrinkles. First, there are the broad benefits of allowing > technology adaptation by people who are often left out of the frame when > tools and systems are designed. As the saying goes, "nothing about us without > us" – the users of technology know more about their needs than any designer > can hope to understand. That's doubly true when designers are wealthy geeks > in Silicon Valley and the users are poor people in the global south. > > India, of course, has its own highly advanced domestic tech sector, who could > be a source of extensive expertise in adapting technologies from US and other > offshore tech giants for local needs. India also has a complex and highly > contested privacy regime, which is in extreme flux between high court > decisions, regulatory interventions, and legislation, both passed and pending. > > Finally, there's India's long tradition of ingenious technological > adaptations, locally called jugaad, roughly equivalent to the English "mend > and make do." While every culture has its own way of celebrating clever > hacks, this kind of ingenuity is elevated to an art form in the global south: > think of jua kali (Swahili), gambiarra (Brazilian Portuguese) and bricolage > (France and its former colonies). > > It took a long time to get this out, but I'm really happy with it, and I'm > extremely grateful to my brilliant and hardworking research assistants from > National Law School of India University: Dhruv Jain, Kshitij Goyal and > Sarthak Wadhwa. > > </q> > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
