Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has worked hard to justify his worldwide internet initiative amidst great criticism from India. The social media guru has been accused of having dire ulterior financial motives with the internet plan.
Intenet.org is set to provide internet to areas of the world where people need it the most, yet have no access. India however, feels that Zuckerberg is using his internet expansion as a way to garner a sponsored service that people will have no choice in when accessing the internet.
Last week Zuckerberg took part in a question and answer session on Facebook and he was questioned about Internet.org. His responses seemed to raise curiosity about net neutrality.
His Internet.org project has been accused of offering service to people in areas of India yet leaving them with only a choice that will serve to benefit Zuckerberg.
After the Facebook Q&A, Zuckerberg addressed the criticisms and explained his views and support of net neutrality. In a Facebook statement Zuckerberg said, “We fully support net neutrality. We want to keep the internet open. Net neutrality ensures network operators don't discriminate by limiting access to services you want to use. It's an essential part of the open internet, and we are fully committed to it but net neutrality is not in conflict with working to get more people connected. These two principles: universal connectivity and net neutrality: can and must coexist.”
He went on to say, “To give more people access to the internet, it is useful to offer some service for free. If someone can't afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access than none at all."
On the flip side of this statement, some feel that the situation stands at Facebook working to create an entirely separate internet by personally choosing the Internet.org partners. In doing this, the company is essentially discriminating against providers that are not on their personal list. If a competitor is on the Internet.org portal, that company would be at a disadvantage because of Internet.org, or Facebooks, probable success.
Indian businessman Osama Manzar rejected Zuckerberg’s statement. He said that Internet.org had a lack of available options and in his opinion was a grave disappointment.
Manyan said in a written statement, "I thought you were working on creating an app that could bring critical and decisive content to the people on the ground in remote areas. I also thought you were keen on provisioning access to the internet to the people who are still deprived and live in remote areas.”
Manyan said that he downloaded the Internet.org app and that he found the only way he could access the app was by using a specific operator.
Manyan said, "This is the first time in my life of accessing the internet for over 20 years when I was told I have to access it only through a particular service provider." He went on to say that many may find Internet.org as a way for Facebook to gain more subscribers.
He also wrote, "While you have been making people believe that Internet.org is a not-for-profit initiative to ensure maximum connectivity to those billions still unconnected, there is a huge confusion and insecurity that is evident from several efforts that are also trying to push Facebook in the name ofInternet.org. As far as Internet.org is concerned, please concentrate on ensuring open access and widespread network access, which will not only secure you more business but mirror ethical conduct."
The group ‘Savetheinternet.in’ issued a statement in the Hindustan Times that showed their adamant disapproval of Internet.org that said, “The reason you're reading Mr. Zuckerberg defend Internet.org so vehemently is because enough Indians - users, startups, media companies - have realized that Facebook is not, and should not be, the internet. In less than 24 hours, many of Facebook's ‘partners' on Internet.org have quit. Internet.org is not open and, despite its name, is not the internet."
In many developed nations, net neutrality has been brought to the public attention and stringent rules are being placed. The issue at hand is the countries that lack the awareness amongst the population amidst government officials that will not provide a closed internet that cannot be controlled by large prestigious companies.
Net neutrality has been widely debated in the last several years and with the debates moving forward about the lack of competition and other factors of Zuckerberg’s internet goals, it will be interesting to see just how far Zuckerberg, Facebook, and Internet.org will go.
Source : - the-newshub
No comments:
Post a Comment