|
I don't think this adequately covers why Facebook is no friend of the open web. What the company tried to do in India with FreeBasics (and I'm a co-founder of the campaign that fought them off), was carve out a part of the open web for themselves. Factor this:
1. Websites had to apply to be available to FreeBasics users, else not.
2. They had to conform to Facebook's technical requirements (which could have arbitrarily been changed by Facebook), and more importantly, comply with Facebook's own terms and conditions.
3. The data-cost differential between the open web and FreeBasics meant that users would have gotten some information, but would think twice before accessing the open web because it would cost them to do so.
4. This is from sources, but the figure that Facebook mentions for people accessing the open web after "trying" free basics is merely the number of people who have clicked on a link, not those who have bought data connections. So it's hardly an on-ramp.
5. In India, we have the only data ever released about FreeBasics, in terms of users: only 20% of users who used FreeBasics till May 2015 had never used the Internet before.
6. There's a better way of increasing Internet access than this. Facebook has ignored other models for providing Free Internet access: the equal rating models from Mozilla, for example.
7. Countries in the EU where Zero Rating has been implemented showed that ISPs had a lower tendency to drop data rates for regular usage. One journalist in Gujarat (an Indian state) told me how retailers stopped pitching FreeBasics to customers because the service was being marketed as "FreeNet: Free Internet service", and customers found that they were being billed for using sites other than FreeBasics sites. We run the risk of Facebook becoming the primary and perhaps only site accessed, as has been indicated by surveys done in Indonesia (by LirneAsia) and Nigeria (I think; by Quartz). The bigger risk is the notion that because the platform is entirely controlled by them, they define the norms, they get to control creation of content and services. The Internet, when access is neutral, is a place where all users are equal, and all users are both consumers and creators. A better product or a smarter strategy, or fund-raising capability has the ability to challenge giants: Facebook beat myspace. Non-neutral Internet access creates separates consumers from creators, and reduces the freedom that creators have to innovate. Facebook is doing what is best for its business, not for the open web. Look at what has happened in case of Instant Articles, and the reach of fan pages: Facebook is prioritizing publishing on its own platform and giving that content greater reach with users. It has also deprecated reach for fan pages. Of course, it's not that changes in google search and youtube's algorithm don't hurt creators, but with Facebook, what is clear is that the intent isn't increasing relevance: it is exercising control to improve monetization. Publishers who are going with Instant Articles are missing the long game: the bait-and-switch. So yes, Facebook celebrating the open web looks hypocritical. |