Free Basics: A Basic Human Right?
On august 2014, Facebook’s co-founder, Mark Zuckerberg introduced the “Free Basics” initiative, where 42 of Africa’s countries are tempted with a free internet service, where mobile users have the ability to reach this platform free of any data charges. This service included many countries like Nigeria and Madagascar and much more. However, this initiative faced criticism in India, where it was described as a disrespect to “Net Neutrality”, because a person has the right to connect to this world based on their own will, which eventually led to banning the service there.
Many people have described this intervention as a “new form of colonialism” or even a “digital colonialism”, where it has the means to “dominate the global internet landscape” says Timothy Karr from “ Save the Internet” campaign, control people’s lives and take over the country’s infrastructure. It can be said that this initiative might not be a direct colonialism of a country, however, it is a colonialism of people’s minds, because luring poor people into thinking what they have is full access, when it’s not, can certainly be a way of undermining their capabilities, and trying to control what they desire to reach.
On July 2014, Zuckerberg posted about the internet.org initiative, or as newly named:“ Free Basics”, where he explained that “every person should have access to free basic internet services — tools for health, education, jobs and basic communication”, as access is a basic human right that every individual should reach. Zuckerberg explained this service in an approachable, human way, however, if we look closely is it still regarded that way? Education plays a major role in this service, where the millions of people should actually be taught how to use such services, where “Alliance for Affordable internet” analyzed the usage of this service in 8 countries, including 3 in Africa, only to find out that only 1 out of 10 connections came from someone who has never used the internet before, which certainly proves that educating the populations about the way Facebook can be used. Next, comes the infrastructure that needs to be stable enough for such an introduction, even though it is said that “Facebook is exploring the infrastructure obstacle, testing a solar-powered drone and developing a satellite, both of which would beam internet access to remote communities from the sky”, can’t this be regarded as partially taking over the country’s infrastructure? In other means, maybe partial colonization? Furthermore, many sources explained that the partial access of this initiative is not consistent where pages and links were not opening, Kenyan tech expert Nanjira Sambuli stated that “links and pages are missing”. Furthermore, in addition to the services being mostly offered in English while forgetting other commonly spoken languages which makes it harder for the users to use and understand the data, a notification appears to “buy data” in case they try to access anything outside the data they can reach, which might be considered a form of digital colonialism by controlling what users are allowed to access. Unfortunately, the access to data is not as limited as it is in the African countries, where in other countries more access is allowed, but not entirely of course. For example, the content of the “Free Basics” app in Ghana doesn’t include important news websites like “MyJoyOnline”, and others. However, in Argentina, two Nigerian websites and regional news websites are offered, which might expose the profit-making side of “Free Basics”.
Through outdated pages and links, lack of educational support, and with only affordability taken into consideration, it might be clear that the beneficial outcomes of this service are not mutual between Facebook and its users, where Facebook’s profits are being made, while other users are having a hard time to access what they want, or rather what they “can” access. To conclude, Facebook’s new initiative may be considered as a “digital colonization” on its users, where access is a “basic right”, but only limited access is granted. In addition, it might be true that Facebook is exploiting the lack of infrastructure in under developed countries by using eco-friendly approaches as a start, however, it is important to note that the access to this service is not available equally between all the countries, where more content is limited in the African countries than the other ones, and where, moreover, to users have to pay to access more data in a service that is supposedly “free of any data charges”. It is no doubt that the “Free Basics” initiative is a huge success that can grant the African populations more connectivity with the outside, however, they could’ve done it in more of a transparent way, where users can be informed about what they will be exposed to, instead of being promised a disappointing service.
References:
Facebook Lures Africa with Free Internet — but What Is the Hidden Cost?Maeve Shearlaw — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-basics-internet-africa-mark-zuckerberg
‘it’s Digital Colonialism’: How Facebook’s Free Internet Service Has Failed Its UsersOlivia Solon — http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets
Mark Zuckerberghttp://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101561824722531
