Here’s why I am supporting Free Basics and so should you
First things first, Facebook is a for profit organization and Free Basics is not a philanthropic endeavor. Regardless of the fact that Facebook is positioning this as a platform to bring education & jobs to the hitherto offline population, it is just a marketing makeover for what is a very smart market capture strategy. With almost 1.2bn users and an already deep penetration among the current internet population, this is one initiative that can get Facebook it’s next 500mn quickly and effectively. And it allows Facebook to offer to its advertisers the holy grail of digital advertising- Brand Reach in tier-II and tier-III cities. Happy advertisers equals lot of dollars. Good move Facebook!
The above is evident to most, yet most of the arguments I’ve read over the past weeks against Free Basics, have been targeted at the very charade that Facebook is putting up. Is this is the best way to provide access to education videos? Is this the best way for people to get a job? And many others. This line of argument can put the Facebook PR team through hours of distress, but brings one no closer to answering the real question- If Free Basics is a for profit market making move that favors a social media giant, should it be allowed?
I think the answer is yes, and here is why.
1. There is no such thing as free lunch.
We live in a capitalist society and the hallmark of a free capitalist society is that it rewards the winner. We’re accepting of the fact that a drug company can come up with a patent that allows them to sell a drug at high prices, often beyond the reach of general population for 20 years. However, we’re not fine with allowing disproportionate advantage to an app that is bringing funny dog videos to the underprivileged. This is classic “some body is making money and I don’t like it” way of thinking and therefore not the best lens to evaluate.
2. Net Neutrality is not like Free Speech
Many arguments I came across carry a fundamental “this is against the principle of net-neutrality” argument. I understand the principle of net-neutrality but I feel it is a stretch to use this in the current context. Unlike speech (& opinion) that is possessed by all human-beings and therefore fundamental for us to preserve, the net being talked about is accessible in this country to less than 20% of the population. And the users that will be impacted have not experienced the internet in any form at all. Neutrality is good goal to have, but its existence is always doubtful. Try searching for Delhi-Mumbai flights on Google and see Google push multiple advertisers, then its own flight product in the first page. How is this a neutral view of the web? Consider Facebook and Whatsapp, where the content is shared by your own social media- How is that a neutral view of the web? When you view Youtube and Google suggests High rated videos and you watch them, how’s that a neutral view of the web? Neutrality is a tough concept to get right and one person’s balanced view of the web might be very skewed for somebody else.
3. An advertising based business is a good partner for the user
One business that is most likely to keep user interests at the top of the mind is an advertising based business (ask the Media, they’ll tell you!). This is because it exists because of its user-base and engagement of its users and alienating them has direct impact on its business. The fact that Facebook is an advertising based, publicly listed business with a global reputation to keep, makes it a far better candidate to lay down a new internet pipe. Better than a Flipkart, better than an Airtel and way way better than BJP (or any other form of government).
4. Users are not stupid
One thing I’ve learnt as a product manager is to never assume the user is stupid. Users might be ill-informed at first, but they are soon able to figure out what’s best for them. In this case, three years hence I foresee, some users will continue to use just Facebook, see what’s popular around the world and catch some relevant news & updates from the social network. Some users will figure out that this is cool and move to a paid internet plan. Some will realize that Facebook is not what it was sold to be, and actually reduces their productivity and happiness. None, however, will continue to be on Facebook even though they don’t want to. Best way to be sure there is no exploitation is to evaluate the fall-back, which in this case is a world without Facebook. Not the same level of interesting, but very livable.
5. It’s actually not our decision
It really is not. In our urban lives, we live in a world of multi-lingual HD programming on sleek LED televisions. We know little of a world without television. If a company was to offer them a colored TV with 8 bundled channels for free (supported by ads!), I don’t know how their life will change. I can just venture a guess that it would improve. Whether I am right or wrong, I do not want to come in way of they having their chance at that 8 channeled TV.
I think this is a good time for the Government to get involved with the program and instead of refusing, put down their asks. They should ensure fare-play and put guard rails on any scenario of user exploitation (though I personally see more scenarios of advertiser exploitation than user exploitation in this picture).
We should come together to create a world where all Indian teenagers have access to funny dog videos on demand. And once in a while one of them will come across this “cool TED talk my friend shared” that would motivate her to create her own history. And that would be pretty awesome.
