G1TalkShop

In the discussions on my previous blog here and the posts on Facebook (as a note and posts) certain issues have cropped up: a) At least a few from outside India have misunderstood that some of those who are critical of ‘Free Basics’ are demanding totally free data. b) Some have questioned the ethics of criticising Facebook and its business from within the platform of Facebook itself. Implied is a position that it is somehow unethical and those who do not like facebook should opt out of it. c) I feel that there are quite a few important points in between all this that we need to discuss more explicitly. This note briefly touches on these. Right or Entitlement to Data Nobody in India has raised the demand (so far) for free access to data services or telecom facilities. It is Zuckerberg who is insisting on offering that! He is lobbying hard to induce 'poor Indians' into accepting what he is pushing as ‘free’ service, claiming that he is doing it to benefit the poor. He wan

“If you dictate what the poor should get, you take away their rights to choose what they think is best for them.” - Naveen Patnaik, chief minister of the Indian state Odisha. The Times of India of 28-Dec-2015 carried an edit page article by Mark Zuckerberg promoting the rebranded 'Free Basics'. Both the title, and its claim, are preposterous. Who and what are Zuckerberg, Facebook, and ‘Free Basics’ to claim that they ‘protect’ net neutrality? In fact, no single service can or will do that. Only strict compliance to both rules and norms – informal and formal – will protect net neutrality against the constant attempts by commercial interests and government agencies to violate or dilute it. We have to make sure that Facebook, internet-dot-org, ‘Free-Basics’ or any other service does not overtly or covertly violate net neutrality while claiming to be net neutral. Mr Zuckerberg has the funny notion that what is basic is different for the poor and rich. From the tenor his art

Recalling #COP15, Copenhagen - What I wrote in 2009. Eco. Times 1-Dec-2009: India must accept binding commitments for deep emission cuts; bargain for economic opportunities that can reduce poverty and sustain economic growth. #COP21 Paris. 2015: I don't accept India's official interpretation of 'differentiated responsibilities' as one that must be unverifiable, non-binding, and totally voluntary. It cannot be one without accountability - towards either mitigation or poverty reduction or both. Countries like India and China are not justified in insisting on unverifiable commitments now when they are among the biggest polluters. The position adopted in 1992 when the aggregate CO2 contribution by countries like India was very low cannot be extended indefinitely. Official Indian position is one of giving a free run to Indian crony capitalists to pollute and plunder environment. The using ‘right to pollute’ as a proxy for ‘right to development’ is dubious, fraudulent,