Facebook's Wikipedia Zero

[DanMurphy]

"Wikipedia Zero" has come up here from time to time.

Story a tech-investor friend shared on Facebook today (unironically) that had him a little creeped out.

It was in Indonesia three years ago that Helani Galpaya first noticed the anomaly.

Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook...

At Davos this year, Sandberg told the well-heeled crowd (paywall) that in the developing world, “people will walk into phone stores and say ‘I want Facebook.’ People actually confuse Facebook and the internet in some places.” Or as Iris Orriss, Facebook’s head of localization and internationalization, has put it, “Awareness of the Internet in developing countries is very limited. In fact, for many users, Facebook is the internet, as it’s often the only accessible application.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Facebook is “often the only accessible application,” as Orriss puts it, but that’s because Facebook—which did not respond to requests to comment on this story—has worked to ensure that it is the easiest and cheapest to access. The company backs internet.org, an initiative to “bring the Internet to the two thirds of the world’s population that doesn’t have it.” Yet internet.org’s showpiece, an app now available in nearly half a dozen countries, provides free access only to Facebook, Facebook messenger, and a handful of other services (the precise lineup varies by country).

Most of these other services are well-meaning and related to development: Women’s rights. Jobs. Maternal-health information. An Ebola FAQ. The only concessions to the wider web are Wikipedia and Google search. But clicking through on a Google search result requires a data plan—and that must be paid for by the user. (Despite the name, internet.org is not a non-profit concern, but very much a part of Facebook Inc.)

[HRIP7]

This is a key thing to keep in mind in the Wifione case as well. Tens of millions of Indians have free access to Wikipedia, but not to alternative sources.

It's why accessnow.org criticised Wikipedia Zero sharply.

Wikimedia is not alone in forging “zero-rating” deals with telcos. Facebook has also struck deals to offer low-data versions of its services in both developed and developing countries. But Wikimedia argues that unlike Facebook Zero, its service is non-commercial, and therefore deserves a special Wikipedia carve-out because no money is changing hands in exchange for prioritization over other services. No money, no net neutrality violation.

This reasoning fails to pass the smell test. The company’s own recently updated terms of service recognize that payment and benefit need not be monetary. In fact, Wikimedia is using its well-known trademarks as currency in deals with telecom partners as it seeks to acquire more users via Wikipedia Zero.

Current users understand that the revolutionary nature of the internet rests in its breadth and diversity. The internet is more than Wikipedia, Facebook, or Google. But for many, zero-rated programs would limit online access to the “walled gardens” offered by the Web heavyweights. For millions of users, Facebook and Wikipedia would be synonymous with “internet.” In the end, Wikipedia Zero would not lead to more users of the actual internet, but Wikipedia may see a nice pickup in traffic.

[Zoloft]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

[Notvelty]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

I'm confused. Are we now going to bar entry to your local library if you can't afford access to the closed shelves at the Smithsonian?

[HRIP7]

Post on Jimbo's talk:

Facebook and Net neutrality[edit]

Facebook is reported to be undermining Net neutrality.

Facebook's march to global domination is trampling over net neutrality—The Verge (February 13, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention in that Verge article of Wikipedia. But Facebook's Internet.org advertises Wikipedia bundling.

[Vigilant]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

I'm confused. Are we now going to bar entry to your local library if you can't afford access to the closed shelves at the Smithsonian?

Are you going to let a corporation decide what should be free on the internet by charging for access to everything and then making certain things free?

[Poetlister]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

I'm confused. Are we now going to bar entry to your local library if you can't afford access to the closed shelves at the Smithsonian?

Are you going to let a corporation decide what should be free on the internet by charging for access to everything and then making certain things free?

How can anyone stop a corporation doing that?

[Midsize Jake]

Are you going to let a corporation decide what should be free on the internet by charging for access to everything and then making certain things free?

How can anyone stop a corporation doing that?

There are laws stopping them (to some extent) in Chile and The Netherlands, but private concerns with enough clout could conceivably run counter-ad campaigns (or even boycotts) against telcos that mislead people into thinking the zero-rated services are "the internet."

Still, we have to remember that zero-rating is an issue mostly in societies, or rather economies, that most of us would have a hard time imagining living our lives in. And in many cases, zero-rating serves the purposes of governments who like having a limited set of choke-points when inconvenient facts about them start getting around.

[Notvelty]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

I'm confused. Are we now going to bar entry to your local library if you can't afford access to the closed shelves at the Smithsonian?

Are you going to let a corporation decide what should be free on the internet by charging for access to everything and then making certain things free?

Yes.

If one corporation does not offer a particular service for free, then that gives another company the capacity to offer a point if difference. There does need to be regulation, but it needs to occur at the wholesale level (data transmission and storage) and be based directly on costs. Various regulators internationally already do this efficiently for energy generation , for example.

[Vigilant]

It passes through violating the idea of 'net neutrality' all the way to 'Net Balkanization.'

I'm confused. Are we now going to bar entry to your local library if you can't afford access to the closed shelves at the Smithsonian?

Are you going to let a corporation decide what should be free on the internet by charging for access to everything and then making certain things free?

How can anyone stop a corporation doing that?

Declare them utilities under federal control. Title II is simple stuff.

[HRIP7]

From Quora (archive link):

What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org project, especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to become a collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation?

Want Answers 10

1 ANSWER

Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales, I am Jimmy Wales and therefore... (more)

567 upvotes by Raya Sharbain, Quora User, Mayank Shukla, (more)

I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org team is in contact with our Wikipedia Zero team.

Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet" (i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge, our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se. But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.

In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and support it fully.

Written 4 Mar, 2014. Asked to answer by Raya Sharbain.

Upvote 567 Downvote Comment 1

(The discussion on Wales' talk page was archived without his ever having commented.)

[Johnny Au]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

[Jim]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

How about "the Brussels of the Internet"? I said that somewhere else, but it does bring in the pointless bureaucracy and resource wastage.

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

How about "the Brussels of the Internet"? I said that somewhere else, but it does bring in the pointless bureaucracy and resource wastage.

How about the Mogadishu of the internet?

[Jim]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

How about "the Brussels of the Internet"? I said that somewhere else, but it does bring in the pointless bureaucracy and resource wastage.

How about the Mogadishu of the internet?

I just Googled that, for fun: First result:

14 tech jobs that pay over $90000 right now

That works.

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

How about "the Brussels of the Internet"? I said that somewhere else, but it does bring in the pointless bureaucracy and resource wastage.

How about the Mogadishu of the internet?

I just Googled that, for fun: First result:

14 tech jobs that pay over $90000 right now

That works.

Click bait!

I like to think that the 14 jobs are as technical leads on pirate ships.
For the record, I would be an awesome pirate!

Perhaps wikimania 2016 can be held in the Mog?
That little girl in Africa and all that.

[Jim]

That little girl in Africa and all that.

I think she's fine now, isn't she? She's a scuba-diving supermodel, last I heard.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

In my experience of dealing with the Swiss, they are incredibly fussy about details, often not seeing the wood for the trees, and not infrequently wrong. I'd say it's not a bad comparison.

[HRIP7]

Wikipedia: The Switzerland of the Internet?

I find that funny. Wikipedia is much less neutral than Switzerland. Wikipedia has so much overrepresented content and underrepresented content.

In my experience of dealing with the Swiss, they are incredibly fussy about details, often not seeing the wood for the trees, and not infrequently wrong. I'd say it's not a bad comparison.

Add Davos, the Swiss's underdeveloped sense of humour and a banking system whose secrecy has historically served the corrupt, and we may be on to something.

[HRIP7]

Mobile World Live, "By Guest", March 3: Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales steps up drive for zero-rated access

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales called on mobile operators across the globe to provide zero-rated access to the online encyclopaedia.

In Tuesday’s second keynote session at Mobile World Congress, Wales said the cost of mobile data prevents millions of people from getting online. “Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge,” Wales said.

[...]

“The next billion people are coming online much faster than people had thought,” he commented, noting that online users in developing markets are also tending to access the same web sites such as Google, Facebook and Wikipedia. “As this next billion come online they are joining the global conversation,” he added.

Wales said a strong focus is to provide more information in local languages. He noted that although people are unlikely to edit or add information on a mobile phone, the increase in mobile readership inspires those with access to a PC to edit information in their own language.

If it takes off, Wikipedia Zero can, with one fell swoop, change the course of the open internet — and not necessarily for the better. No corporate or single platform — whether it's Facebook or Wikipedia — should be put in charge of curating access to the world's information. Simply put, zero rated content makes zero sense for the future of the open internet and the rights of those who use it. —AccessNow[/i]

[HRIP7]

David Ramli, Sydney Morning Herald, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales says Facebook puts profits ahead of users

Wikipedia co-founder and technology entrepreneur Jimmy Wales has accused Facebook of putting advertisers ahead of its 890 million users. [...]

"In the process the purpose of Facebook has become about the advertisers more than it is about the users," he said. "They do care about the users, of course, but they have two masters."

Mr Wales co-founded Wikipedia, which is a non-profit and ad-free encyclopaedia that depends on regular fundraising drives to stay alive. Some commentators have complained its pleas for donations have become overly intrusive and unnecessary - a claim it denies. [...]

Facebook is also attempting to spread internet services to the developing world through its "Internet.Org by Facebook" program, which attempts to give people free internet access to basic services like Wikipedia and Google Search.

However, Mr Zuckerberg told telco operators at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last week that the service would become profitable as customers paid fees to stay connected or upgrade.

Facebook has also just launched a new product called Topic Data, which lets companies view what all of its members think of their products and services using anonymised information.

[Vigilant]

[Hex]

Picturing Wales trying to tell Zuckerberg what to do is comic. Zuck may be an evil asshole, but he's incredibly rich and powerful because he's fucking smart, a classic tech supervillain. Spot the difference.

[Vigilant]

Picturing Wales trying to tell Zuckerberg what to do is comic. Zuck may be an evil asshole, but he's incredibly rich and powerful because he's fucking smart, a classic tech supervillain. Spot the difference.

From what people tell me, Jimbo's not even average int for the valley.
Add in the super-narcissistic tendencies and he bores the ever living shit out of people who think for a living.

[EricBarbour]

Please, please, let's see the two bastards start a public feud......

[thekohser]

And cue Mike Godwin to add his "but, but, but, Wikipedia is a charity, and the Third World needs zero-rated knowledge" argument on the pile.

I'll bet Hitler would have approved of zero-rated Nazi party content! (You're welcome, Mike.)

I left Mike a comment on the Reason page.

[HRIP7]

A lot of debate about zero-rated programmes in the Indian press today: linkhttp://www.outlookindia.com/news/articl ... ess/891413[/link], linkhttp://indianexpress.com/article/techno ... rtel-zero/[/link] and many others.

After a video by comedy group AIB (explaining why net neutrality is essential for India) went viral on social networks, actors like Shah Rukh Khan and Kunal Kemmu, music composer Vishal Dadlani and Congress leader Digvijay Singh have also extended support through tweets.

The nine-minute video urged people to sign up against allowing telecom operators/internet service providers to choose the type, quantity or pricing of content for consumers.

Leading the voices of Bollywood, actor-director Farhan Akhtar has called for a campaign to 'save the Internet'.

Over the past few months, operators like Reliance Communications and Uninor have also tied up with players like Facebook, WhatsApp and Wikipedia to offer free usage to consumers, which has drawn flak from activists and consumers.

[DanMurphy]

A lot of debate about zero-rated programmes in the Indian press today: linkhttp://www.outlookindia.com/news/articl ... ess/891413[/link], linkhttp://indianexpress.com/article/techno ... rtel-zero/[/link] and many others.

After a video by comedy group AIB (explaining why net neutrality is essential for India) went viral on social networks, actors like Shah Rukh Khan and Kunal Kemmu, music composer Vishal Dadlani and Congress leader Digvijay Singh have also extended support through tweets.

The nine-minute video urged people to sign up against allowing telecom operators/internet service providers to choose the type, quantity or pricing of content for consumers.

Leading the voices of Bollywood, actor-director Farhan Akhtar has called for a campaign to 'save the Internet'.

Over the past few months, operators like Reliance Communications and Uninor have also tied up with players like Facebook, WhatsApp and Wikipedia to offer free usage to consumers, which has drawn flak from activists and consumers.

Colonialists!

Nathan Awrich: Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist aspect to (Best's) absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is), then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

[Jim]

Colonialists!

Nathan Awrich: Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist aspect to (Best's) absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is), then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

But...
Surely the argument is the other way around? The proponents of Wikipedia Zero are the ones providing their bible, and only their bible.
Or am I missing something?

Oh, yes, it's the "one true bible", written by Wifione, Qworty and the Bhutan bloke... Gotcha.

[HRIP7]

Colonialists!

Nathan Awrich: Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist aspect to (Best's) absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is), then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

Indian Express:

Wikipedia might be an instant go to for many of us, but that still doesn’t justify why it should be free of charge on a particular network, when accessing other sites means incurring data charges for users.

Related Twitter hashtags: #SaveTheInternet #NetNeutrality #IndiaWantsNetNeutrality #NetNeutralityIndia

[DanMurphy]

Nothing to see here, move along.

The European Union accused Google on Wednesday of cheating competitors by distorting Internet search results in favour of its Google Shopping service and also launched an antitrust probe into its Android mobile operating system. In a statement, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said the US tech giant, which dominates Internet search engines globally, had been sent a Statement of Objections - effectively a charge sheet - to which it can respond.

There was no immediate public response from Google, but an internal memo to staff published by the blog re/code described the moves as “very disappointing news” and said: “We have a very strong case, with especially good arguments when it comes to better services for users and increased competition.”