Disconnect: Mark Zuckerberg is trying to hoodwink India

Photo by Robert Scoble

Disconnect is a weekly column in which Tech in Asia’s Charlie Custer pokes at holes, plays devil’s advocate, or otherwise attempts to rain on the tech industry’s parade.

You’re probably long-since familiar with the basic dispute: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are offering free “internet” to India’s poor, with the caveat that it comes through Facebook and only includes a limited list of Facebook-approved sites (although technically anyone can apply to join). This, Zuckerberg argues, is a charitable mission to help bring the next billion internet users online. Critics counter that it’s a violation of net neutrality, giving the poor access to a walled garden that isn’t the real internet and that’s meant to turn new internet users into Facebook users.

Zuckerberg seems to be baffled by the fact that so many Indians aren’t welcoming his “gift” with open arms. So baffled, in fact, that he recently wrote an op-ed in the Times of India about it. But whatever you think about Zuckerberg’s intentions and Internet.org as an idea, there’s no denying that his article is a patronizing, misleading mess.

Fallacy ho!

Zuckerberg’s article begins with a classic example of the false equivalence fallacy. “In every society,” he writes, “there are certain basic services that are so important for people’s wellbeing [sic] that we expect everyone to be able to access them freely.” Libraries, healthcare, education: these are examples of services Zuckerberg says societies agree to provide their citizens.

For example, he writes: “We have collections of free basic books. They’re called libraries. They don’t contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.” Internet.org’s “Free Basics” is the same thing, he argues. Sure, it’s not the whole internet, but after all libraries don’t contain every book, either. What is everyone complaining about?

This comparison, of course, is absurd. Libraries, schools, and public hospitals are provided to society by society. They aren’t owned or managed by private corporations, and with good reason. Imagine, for example, that in a developing rural area, instead of building a public library, the town allowed a private publishing company to build and operate a library. Or imagine that instead of building a public school, the area allowed a private company to build and operate the local schools. If you lived in the area, would you be in favor of these plans? Of course not, because the opportunity for conflicts of interest is too great. Exxon could build a school and then teach kids in its science classes that fossil fuels are the healthiest way forward for our planet. Penguin could build a library and stock it in a way that pushed more people towards reading (and buying) Penguin’s books.

Mark Zuckerberg is not an idiot.

Zuckerberg would probably counter this line of argument by saying that Facebook would never do something like that, and that Internet.org’s Free Basics is an open platform. That’s kind of true, although anyone who wants to join still has to pass technical muster and be approved, but it’s beside the point. There’s no oversight. Just because Facebook isn’t abusing its power with Free Basics now doesn’t mean it couldn’t in the future.

Libraries, schools, healthcare – these are public services for good reason. They’re there for everyone, and they shouldn’t be vulnerable to being compromised to suit the interests of some global megacorporation. Internet.org’s Free Basics, despite Zuckerberg’s insistence to the contrary, is not a public service. It is not owned or managed by the public, and as such, Zuckerberg’s comparison is invalid. Yes, we accept libraries that don’t include every book on earth, but we do that in part because we’re confident that the people picking the books work for us, the public. Ultimately oversight and control over these services is in our hands. That’s not the case with Free Basics at all.

Mark Zuckerberg is not an idiot, and he knows full well that this comparison is absurd. Indians should find it insulting. It’s a flimsy attempt to connect Internet.org – a service some people have very valid opposition to – with things that nobody opposes, like free access to education for children. But Internet.org’s Free Basics, whether you love it or hate it, is not the same thing as public education.

This is not the same thing as a public school. Photo credit: downloadsource.fr.

“Who could be against this?”

Zuckerberg goes on to argue that internet access lifts people out of poverty – which is true – and then asserts:

Non sequitur