Unfortunately for him, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) turned it down. Why would TRAI turn down a free service being offered by the social media giant? The answer is subtle but very important. While some free access to internet is better than no access, the Facebook free offer was giving access to only certain websites. Thus the poor who opted for Free Basics would be able to roam only where Facebook allowed them to roam. This curtails a more basic kind of freedom, i.e. freedom to roam the internet. And all other smaller websites would have to pay Facebook to enter this “walled garden”. This is opposite to the principle of net neutrality. A profitmaking organisation like Facebook was offering “free services” because it hoped to make those free customers become sticky and paying customers, in the future. It was like a “foot in the door” policy, giving freebies in the beginning, that any monopoly uses to oust competitors. Once it has hundreds of millions of users inside the “walled garden”, it would charge monopoly pricing to those who wanted to access those customers. It would become a gatekeeper to a privately owned corner of the internet. Thanks to a nationwide people’s campaign for net neutrality, the Facebook plan for Free Basics failed.

That was five years ago. The power of platform economics is much better understood now. Their monopoly power is massive and has caused concern across the world. The US Congress recently summoned the CEOs of four large American tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple) to question them about their monopolistic practices. Apart from monopoly issues, social media companies like Facebook also have to contend with issues that impinge on freedom of speech. India is its biggest market. It owns WhatsApp and Instagram, and the combined user base is easily more than 700 million. FB says it does not censor free speech, but even President Trump has accused it of creating a negative bias. FB has faced severe criticism for allowing advertisement with fake information that influenced American voters. Its revenues from political ads are not easily disclosed. In fact since 2011 it has been asking the US Federal Election Commission to exempt it from disclosing revenue from political advertisements. Its employees do assist political campaigns who buy services from FB. But this sometimes makes the company too close to governments and ruling parties. This, combined with its enormous reach, power and data, make it a formidable force in electoral democracies. Add to this hate speech. The dividing line between hate speech and free speech is thin, but this gets decided by the company itself. What if it ends up helping one political constituency?

Last week The Wall Street Journal ran a full page story alleging that Facebook in India ignored their internal guidelines, and did not remove hate speech posts, because these were posted by politicians from the ruling party. Removing those posts, despite complaints from users, would have soured their business prospects in India, as per the article. Most remarkably, the company abides by much stricter guidelines on what can be posted in most other countries such as Germany, Singapore or most of Europe. So these posts would not have passed muster elsewhere. As a result of the WSJ’s explosive allegation, there has been an internal dissent within the company questioning the top management of such dilution of their own internal standards. India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT has summoned the company to appear before it, to clarify the charges. FB says it employs sophisticated artificial intelligence tools to detect fake news or hate speech. But that may not be good enough. There are provisions in India’s laws (InfoTechnology Act 2000 and Cable TV Act 1995) that are applicable. In the era of omniscience and almost monopoly power of social media companies, and proliferation of fake news coupled with hate speech, some regulation is definitely needed. It will need to carefully balance free speech versus hate speech curbs, and innovation.

The article was originally published on Mirror Now.

Image Credit: Reuters (Used for representation purpose only)

The exponential rise of Facebook itself, which grew from 40 million to 160 million users in the US in those four years, was crucial to the success of the 2012 election. Of course, television was more important, but the use of Facebook data in electoral campaigns was fast catching up. That was eight years ago. Today, social media-based campaigns are on par, if not surging ahead, in terms of efficacy in comparison to television. Today, Facebook also owns WhatsApp and Instagram, making it the single largest repository of user data owned in the private sector.

After the 2016 elections, the role of Facebook came under increasing scrutiny. Was it biasing electoral outcomes? President Trump has accused it of creating prejudice, which the company has denied. Its co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has said that his company offers a platform to all people to voice their ideas. It does not censor free speech.

It is a platform for civic engagement between voters and candidates. It remains non-partisan. It claims to remain a politically agnostic tool. But Facebook faced severe criticism that it allowed Russian-funded advertisements, with fake information, to influence voters.

In fact, increasingly, its role in catering to politically well-funded campaigns has been in the spotlight. Does this information get transparently disclosed? Does the company take care of removing fake information or misinformation? Actually, as per Bloomberg reports, since 2011 Facebook has been asking the US Federal Election Commission to exempt it from disclosing revenue from political ads. This would put it in a more exclusive situation as compared to television and broadcast media.

In general, the company will push back any government request about user data, to maintain users’ privacy, unless it is legally warranted. But then, its close work with political party campaigns means its employees get close to what can be called electioneering. Facebook helps elected officials connect to citizens, through live streaming, participative interactions and, in that process, helps governance. But its proximity to governments, combined with its enormous reach, power and data make it a formidable force in electoral democracies.

Added to all this, the phenomenon of hate speech, organised harassment and trolling. There are enough instances when bigotry and hate speech have been spread through social media. There have been cases of lynching and violence which arose out of messages circulating on social media. It is a company like Facebook (which also owns WhatsApp) which decides what is trolling or harassment and what is protected free speech. It has to draw the thin line between hate speech and free speech. But the company is not the judiciary, nor is it subject to broadcast licensing. So, what if it tilts, even unwittingly, to one side? Aer all, the incumbent candidates and governments can be lucrative ad buyers, and could potentially influence Facebook’s internal policing decisions. It does employ sophisticated Artificial Intelligence tools to detect fake news or hate speech, but that still may not be good enough.

India has the world’s largest number of Facebook and WhatsApp, and possibly Instagram, users as well. In China, these are banned. The reach, influence and potential power of social media can only be imagined. Prime Minister Modi has the largest number of followers on a variety of social media platforms, including Facebook. He has leveraged the medium to a great extent, and established direct connections with citizens in a way which is a break from the olden days or radio or television. The implication for electoral politics is obvious.

A few years ago, the Chief Election Commissioner of India said that in earlier days, the EC had to worry about the influence of two “M”s. These were money and muscle power. But increasingly there is a third “M” which is “media”. By which he meant the menace of paid news, fake news, misinformation and disinformation. He was mostly referring to print and electronic media, which are all licensed businesses. The EC’s job is to ensure free and fair election without the undue influence of money, muscle and media power. But to this third M, we have to include social media. The recent revelation in a Wall Street Journal article on the role of Facebook in India’s electoral politics, and in being uneven in its treatment of curbing hate speech or trolling, to help a particular political party, raises many questions. How should we regulate this immense power?

Even in the domain outside electoral politics, the CEOs of the big four, i.e. Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple were recently summoned to Washington to appear before a Congressional hearing. This was to grill them about their growing clout in stifling competition in the marketplace. There is a demand that some anti-trust, i.e. anti-monopoly, measures be introduced to curb their power.

Similarly, in the domain of elections, too, messaging, networking and microblogging social media platforms have to be regulated to curb misuse and also partisanship. This is a huge challenge for the Election Commission. Luckily, there is evidence that voters themselves, are becoming sceptical of fake news and paid news. Ultimately, an enlightened citizenry, or voters who invest time and effort in educating themselves, and don’t remain passive consumers of social media content, are the best protection and guarantee of a free and fair election.

The article was originally published on Deccan Herald.

Image Credit: Reuters