Internet.org, launched in August 2013, is the execution of Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of providing free internet access to people around the world that began with initiatives such as Facebook Zero. The project is a joint collaboration between Facebook and six other companies, including Samsung, Nokia and Qualcomm. Over the last two years, the project has launched in various “developing” countries across the world, of which the majority are located in Africa and Asia. Recently, however, the project has come under scrutiny and severe criticism for violating so-called ‘net neutrality’ principles. In each country where they have a presence, internet.org has partnered with a local mobile telephone carrier company to provide ‘free’ internet to their consumers. The catch is that this ‘free’ version of internet that was being provided isn’t the same as the internet we know. Instead, only a limited selection of websites were offered for free consumption. This is an outright violation of the principle of net neutrality, which states that all data on the internet should be treated equally. In other words, it should not be possible to access only a select number of websites or mobile applications for free; this freedom should in principle extend to any and all online content accessible in regular circumstances.
The backlash against internet.org has been particularly strong in India, where they were partnered with Reliance Mobile. Several companies that were originally part of the project pulled out at the last moment, citing violation of net neutrality as the reason. This came at a time when Airtel, another mobile carrier, was caught violating net neutrality by offering an online shopping app for free on their services. This incident caused a surge of online awareness campaigns that collectively fueled the public ire against Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg spared no time in going into damage-control mode, publishing a lengthy post on his Facebook page defending the project by presenting a touching story of children experiencing the internet for the first time in a tiny village in rural India. People were not too ready to buy this, however.
The problems with internet.org are not limited to this. The name itself is misleading; people might easily confuse this service for the actual internet. Also, the .org domain implies that the venture is charitable and not-for-profit. Technically, this is true, but the commercial benefits for this service are undeniable. People whose first taste of the internet consists of a limited selection of apps and websites (including Facebook) will get hooked onto these specific services, with no idea of the alternatives they could have had. Facebook would essentially have cornered a massive user base of naïve first time internet users whose perception of the internet is completely controlled and filtered by Facebook. In essence, people would be confusing Facebook for the internet. In fact, this is a problem already in places like the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand where surveys conducted have shown that more people claimed to be using Facebook than the internet. In their minds, Facebook and the internet are two distinct and mutually exclusive features, which is horrifying to think about. If Facebook has this level of control over the internet and what people consume online, there is no extent to the things it can do to potentially manipulate and control their user base for gain and profit.
It is also established that the version of Facebook offered under internet.org is a basic text-only version that can be operated cheaply on limited bandwidth, making the experience sub-par to begin with. Users may be getting this basic version for free, but if they attempt to view pictures on Facebook or follow links to other locations on the internet via Facebook, they are redirected to a page that offers an upgraded version for a certain monetary rate. Facebook is essentially enticing customers who are possibly already established users to spend money they might not have in order to use their service like any other consumer, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of the initiative.
On top of all this, internet.org poses serious security and privacy issues to its consumers. As of now, the service incorporates no encryption schemes of any sort, making it incredibly easy for people to snoop through and steal your data. Also, a precondition for offering a service on the internet.org platform is that Facebook must be allowed to track user information and data on these services, which can in turn be shared with the respective telecom companies and governments. All in all, it is a very scary situation.
More recently, in light of all the criticisms Facebook has received for the net neutrality violations, they have decided to open up the program in order to allow third-party developers to join in. There are several problems that come along with this. Telecom operators can choose to reject a proposed service outright if they want to, which creates an obvious conflict of interest in some cases. Also, start-ups that generally provide quite useful services are required to optimize their applications for a whole new platform, which they might not be equipped to do, giving more established companies an unfair advantage.
The counter-proposition that most people offer with regards to the execution of this venture is to give free data – limited, but free – that can be used by consumers however they wish, with absolutely no restrictions. This is however a utopia that seems too unfeasible to exist – which makes it all the more clear that the only reason Facebook wants this project to succeed is that this is their only avenue for long term growth in the future. Without internet.org, Facebook’s growth will saturate. The only way they can grow is to get more people to use the internet and, in turn, Facebook.
Opposing internet.org may seem like we’re shooting down the one viable idea to get more people online and connected. However, people are bound to come up with alternative ideas that work without violating internet freedom and net neutrality. Until then, it seems like it would be a better for people to wait than to be tethered to a service run by a multinational corporation whose sole objective is to seek profits.
Leave a Reply