According to an article published a few weeks ago, Facebook is about to increase internet connectivity around the world by partnering with a French satellite company, Eutelsat, to provide broadband internet access to large parts of sub-Saharan Africa. This is part of Facebook’s “Internet.org” initiative that aims to bring internet services to “underserved countries,” especially areas with middle to lower population densities. Does it sound like a great idea? Sure. And in a lot of ways it could be, but we also need to think critically about all the potential implications of instituting this sort of change before blindly “liking” Facebook’s actions.
The internet does amazing things in terms of connecting people who otherwise might not be able to be connected. It’s a phenomenal information sharing center, giving people access to immense markets and information to which they may not otherwise have access. Theoretically, this could help countries develop and engage more rigorously with the global economy. (Though, to be realistic, these two potential outcomes would be extremely complex, so complex that I cannot go into detail here, as it would involve expanding on the pros and cons of both the problematic idea of development, what it means to engage in the global economy and, in this author’s opinion, the negative connotations of the described outcomes).
We have no way of predicting whether the intervention will have any of these positive or negative impacts. It could completely change the way that local economies function going forward. The presence of the internet in more disconnected areas could lead to more trade with far-away places, with potential to seriously hurt local economies by putting many people out of jobs. This is especially the case because the internet tends to be more consumer-focused than producer-focused. Thus it would be much easier to consume, to buy things online, than it would be to use to sell goods to a larger market for these small business owners or farmers.
The economy of the internet is also decidedly set against small-scale producers, because as a producer, you’re competing against much larger entities which will end up forcing prices down. This price deflation is something that small-scale producers cannot afford in order to sustain themselves and their families. They will lose business if they can’t drive their prices down to compete with the monopolistic entities — I mean “large-scale companies” — in the market today.
This internet intervention could also have severely negative impacts on the way that people communicate on an interpersonal level. While the internet may help connect with other people at a great distance, it does a lot to separate us from people who are right in front of us. One of the things that our generation gets a lot of flack for is spending too much time on our mobile devices and online. This is not a social problem where the internet does not exist, but it can rapidly become one.
In reality, the outcome will likely be a mix of the potential positives and negatives. While it can be done, it’s difficult to accurately predict based on a strict outcome assessment whether this is a good thing or not. It’s important to also look at why exactly Facebook is trying to increase connectivity. It has nothing to do, really, with benefiting the people who will be engaging with this new technology. It’s about profit. It’s a way for Facebook to begin collecting even more information about people and profiting off the possession of that information. That’s kind of problematic, putting it charitably.
It’s also extremely interesting that the plan is to bring this service to Sub-Saharan Africa only. Why exclude North Africa? Why exclude areas in Asia and South America and the Middle East and Europe and North America that all have middle and lower population densities and poor internet connectivity? Facebook clearly has the power and capability to extend internet services in all of these places, but has chosen not to for unspoken reasons. Examining the “charitable act” in this light reveals it as more of the politically-minded publicity stunt than it is, as opposed to the benevolent good that it may seem to be.
Another problematic facet of this plan is the fact that Mark Zuckerberg, while being a marketing genius and an above-average programmer, doesn’t know enough about any part of Africa to begin implementing such massive changes across the continent. Other than believing internet connectivity to be a human right and launching this program, I have been able to find no evidence that he has any knowledge of any local cultures across the continent. In order to render a service effectively anywhere in the world, the service provider has to be connected with, or at least have a basic understanding of, the political, economic and social situations of the place where the service is being provided. At least that way he’d know that the urgency of this service is nowhere near comparable to the urgency of certain other needs. If he really wanted to make a difference, he would find a way to donate the company’s money that he would have spent on this project to a company or organization that is doing more needed, ethically-grounded work.
Facebook needs to do a better job of thinking realistically about all the possible outcomes before it takes action. And when it does, the company must act in a way that actually makes the world better, not with the sole intent of thickening an already-too-large wallet. So thanks, Facebook, but I think that we can do just fine without you on this one.
Contact Mina Shah at minashah ‘at’ stanford.edu.