Facebook and the Open Internet

Since its inception and adoption for public use, the internet has been an open platform. Any and all content is publishable and viewable by any and all people with access.

Recently, the viability of this open platform has been debated. There are so many opportunities for profit if the internet is controlled a little differently, with certain sites paying a premium for better visibility and download speed, or access to different sites being controlled much like cable access is controlled.

This debated shift would have far reaching repercussions — smaller start ups would have to pay to be as visible as their successful competitors. And the way the world uses the internet would be determined, not by democratic competition for the best startup or website, but by those who can pay for the privilege of controlling the internet.

Facebook has recently found itself in a position to do just that. Millions of smart phone users around the world use the Facebook app but have no other access to the Internet. This singular usage means that, to them, the internet is Facebook. The chart below shows the results of asking people in different countries if they use the internet and if they use Facebook.

For many people, using the internet and using Facebook are two different things. And Facebook use is much more prevalent.

This prevalence is not an accident. Facebook Inc. has done a fantastic job of positioning their services so that they are accessible to the most amount of people possible. In some developing countries, Facebook comes pre-loaded on most smart phones and is free to access, even without a cellular plan. Facebook calls this service internet.org (or Free Basics), and is billing it as a humanitarian effort to connect as many people as possible to the internet. But the service is limited to certain sites. Some are job search or medical aid sites, but the primary site accessible by those using internet.org is Facebook.

There are two different perspectives on this project. One is that it gives access to the internet to those who otherwise wouldn’t have it. The other is that it sets a dangerous precedent for corporate controlled internet going forward.

Most recently, India has put their participation in internet.org on hold amid debates over net neutrality and the implications of internet provided and controlled by a large corporation. Regulators have also voiced concerns over the lack of transparency when dealing with Facebook. In response, Mark Zuckerberg wrote:

“Who could possibly be against this? Instead of wanting to give people access to some basic internet services for free, critics of the program continue to spread false claims — even if that means leaving behind a billion people.”

In response, Net Neutrality advocacy group SaveTheInternet responded:

“Facebook deceived users into bombarding the regulator with emails supporting Free Basics but even then did not answer the regulator’s questions on differential pricing”(Forbes).

The outcome of this debate will shape the way we globally use and experience the internet. Its a complicated issue, and one that should be carefully considered before we decided what the future of the internet will be.