To what extent does Facebook perpetuate electronic colonialism?
For this essay I am going analyse Facebook using the concepts of electronic colonialism, hidden pipelines and cyborg anthropology. I will take each of these one at a time and apply their thinking to Facebook and its activities to see to what extent Facebook propagates, either wittingly or unwittingly, electronic colonialism or colonialism of the mind. While physical or traditional colonialism as perpetrated by, for example, the British or Dutch has ceased, Jennifer Wenzel writes in Decolonization that "'Post-colonial' … was a periodising term, a historical and not an ideological concept." (450) I would like to see whether colonialism is, in fact, still occurring via new media platforms such as social media. To deepen my exploration I will bring in the additional concepts of hidden pipelines in relation to oil pipelines and the field of cyborg anthropology as explicated by Amber Rose.
I am going to assume that most readers of this paper will be aware of Facebook and how social media platforms work in a general way. A part of Facebook that may not be so well known is their project Internet.org and its associated Free Basics app. Internet.org describes itself as "a Facebook-led initiative with the goal of bringing internet access and the benefits of connectivity to the portion of the world that doesn‘t have them." (Internet.org) Its main tool in carrying out its mission is an app called Free Basics which provides people with basic access to the internet for free. The idea is that populations in countries where internet access is poor or expensive can utilise a basic phone (which many people in said countries have but do not use for internet access) to surf the web and take advantage of its tools such as weather reporting, news, employment opportunities etc. While Free Basics, at first impression, sounds fantastically philanthropic (and undoubtedly partly is) it is also here where we most obviously encounter Facebook participating in electronic colonialism.
Electronic colonialism is the idea that new media is leading us into a new concept of empire, one that is based on colonising the mind rather than by physically invading countries. While the Free Basics app does give free access to the internet for those that use it, it does also have some limitations which are not highlighted by the Internet.org website quite as loudly. The app, while giving free internet access, does limit how much of the internet is available. Free Basics uses apps which are picked by Facebook and, as a result of this, Facebook has been accused of violating net neutrality rules. To further explain: while free internet is available through the Free Basics app, the access is confined to a limited selection of apps that Facebook has approved for use on the platform. In doing this Facebook can exclude its competitors and offer an internet that is vastly reduced in size to only a relatively small handful of Facebook approved services. In response to the accusations of its net neutrality violation Facebook has opened up the platform for independent software companies to develop apps for it, but software companies still have to abide by pre-set conditions and rules that Facebook has laid out in order for the software developers app to be accepted. While the accusations of net neutrality violation must clearly have some weight in current society for Facebook to respond as they have, accusations of electronic colonialism are less well documented.
In order to understand why electronic colonialism is perhaps less discussed I want to bring in the concept of hidden pipelines in relation to oil distribution. Firstly, there is the not so well known fact that the cabling which carries the internet across the world follows the same routes as existing oil pipelines. This link is further deepened by the invisibility of the pipes and cabling once their installation is complete. It is worth noting though that while electronic colonialism focuses on non-physical intrusions, the laying of internet cabling, mainly through pay-offs and bribery to those landowners affected, does still operate on a physical level during this process. In Pipeline Politics, Imre Szeman elaborates further: "Until recently, pipelines have not played a role in politics in large part because they were, on the whole, as socially invisible as they were physically distant and out of sight, neither encountered by the public in daily activity nor featured in their social imaginaries." (403) As concern over climate change has increased the dialogue around hidden oil pipelines has opened up however. As we encounter new developments and frontiers with the internet, maybe, in parallel with concern over climate change, the discourse around electronic colonialism will open up too. The CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is coming under increasing scrutiny over scandals that have hit his company that reveal the power of his platform. Szeman writes that "the presence of pipelines mirrors existing global divisions of power and wealth." (402) With pre-internet power structures taking a long time to understand and embrace the internet is Zuckerberg quietly becoming one of the most powerful unelected leaders of our time? In a further mirroring, Szeman writes that "pipeline infrastructure was developed as a device for controlling who would profit from the flow of oil; it was not merely a technical device for getting oil to customers." (403) With the above in mind it is clear how Facebook and Zuckerberg might also face similar accusations in relation to Internet.org and its Free Basics app.
Recent examples in the news media demonstrate how, as Facebook matures, it is coming up against unforeseen or unthinkable uses for its technology. The first to perhaps mention is the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 where a Facebook app developed by Cambridge Analytica was misused to harvest Facebook users' personal information without their consent. This information was then used for political marketing purposes. As a result Zuckerberg was forced into making a rare public appearance when he was called to appear before the United States Congress to face questions on the incident. Previously, concerns over privacy on the platform were washed away with adages such as 'if you have nothing to hide then you don't need to be worried' placing the emphasis on the user. The Cambridge Analytica scandal reversed this emphasis on to Facebook and Zuckerberg. Previously keen to keep the platform as open as possible it was the first milestone in a major change of emphasis on Facebook's behalf since its inception. The second milestone in this change of emphasis occurred following the use of Facebook's live streaming capabilities in the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand this year. The massacre that was live streamed on Facebook by the perpetrator resulted in 51 deaths and left 49 people injured. The prominent YouTuber Pewdiepie was also a feature of the event with the shooter shouting "subscribe to Pewdiepie" just before he began firing. As a result of this unprecedented and darkly historic world first, Zuckerberg reversed tack on his previous emphasis on Facebook being as open as possible. Recently he has ordered for all far-right content to be removed from the site. Zuckerberg also announced that the site would now be focusing on privacy as it's main concern going forward and has even gone as far as removing the blue colour from the visual look of the platform, something that has been a trademark feature since its inception.
What the above recent events prove is that the world, including Facebook and Zuckerberg, are slowly starting to wake up to the level of power that social media and the internet provide. Previously seen as a sort of benign contact tool, Facebook is now being used for aggressive political manoeuvring and the spreading of extreme ideology. I believe that Zuckerberg's naivety and/or belief in purist utopianism is partly to blame here. How did Zuckerberg and his team really think that their platform, which opens up the possibility for the first time for anyone to publish content to an audience that is potentially the entire world, think that not removing extremist content wouldn't result in an incident such as the Christchurch mosque shootings? Hopefully now you can see that while we live in a historically post-colonial era in relation to colonialism as we knew it, a new era of electronic colonialism - colonialism of the mind - is only just beginning. To further emphasise this it's important to keep in mind how populations previously received news and information in the pre-internet era. Previous to the mass take-up of the internet (which from personal experience occurred sometime around 2006) mass-media outlets only included the newspaper, radio and television. All three of these sources were/are controlled by a very small group of gatekeepers meaning that populations were (in comparison with now) very highly controlled in the knowledge that they had access to. With the internet we see a complete reversal of that situation due to its complete lack of gatekeepers. The difference this is making to humanity is another area that I believe is seriously under-acknowledged. I can now publish anything to the entire world for virtually nothing. I can learn as much information and knowledge as my brain can take without ever visiting a school or library. I can discuss issues and problems with people anywhere in the world instead of relying on a one way source of information from the newspaper, radio or television. What we are seeing is only the beginning, the possibilities and opportunities for human advancement are staggering and mind boggling if you pause and think about it at all.
Before this paper reaches its conclusion I would like to make one detour into cyborg anthropology. Cyborg anthropology is defined as "a discipline that studies the interaction between humanity and technology from an anthropological perspective. The discipline is relatively new, but offers novel insights on new technological advances and their effect on culture and society." (Cyborg Anthropology) There appears to be a connection between cyborg anthropology and electronic colonialism via the definition of cyborg which is traditionally defined as "a system with both organic and inorganic parts." (Cyborg Anthropology) Does then a service such as Facebook, accessed through the inorganic smart phone or personal computer, turn us into cyborgs? The answer can only be yes. In much the same way as the discovery of fire or the wheel enabled humanity technologically, so also does the internet and platforms such as Facebook. "In the broadest sense, all human interactions with technology could qualify as cyborg. Most cyborg anthropologists lean towards the latter view of the cyborg; some, like [academic] Amber Case, even claim that humans are already cyborgs because people's daily life and sense of self is so intertwined with technology." (Cyborg Anthropology) So electronic colonialism does work by turning its subjects into cyborgs if electronic colonialism works through the media and mass take up of the internet.
It is the conclusion of this paper therefore that Facebook perpetuates electronic colonialism to a great extent. The acknowledgment of this is largely underplayed or misunderstood by those responsible such as Mark Zuckerberg and our flailing western governments who were totally sidestepped (and continue to be so) by the rise of far-right ideology disseminated through Facebook and the internet. Try to imagine humanity as a person in room with no windows and the light switched off. This is how humanity could be characterised (relatively) up until the internet arrived. Suddenly a bright light has been switched on and the visibility gained is still in the early stages of comprehension. Pre-internet behemoths such as governments and industry appear to have shut their eyes. A mirroring of this occurred in the way the music industry reacted to file sharing for many years, even openly suing its own customers. Only fairly recently, with the success of streaming platforms such as Spotify and its ilk, has the music industry opened its eyes a little and stopped tilting at windmills. Where the internet and powerful publishing tools such as Facebook take us next should be taken very seriously indeed.
Bibliography
1. Wenzel, Jennifer. "Decolonization" A Companion to Critical and Cultural Theory. Edited by Imre Szeman et al., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017.
2. Internet.org, www.internet.org/. Accessed 27 Jun. 2019.
3. Szeman, Imre. “Pipeline Politics.” South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 116, no. 2, 2017, pp. 402–407.
4. “Cyborg Anthropology.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 May 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_anthropology. Accessed 27 Jun. 2019.
I am going to assume that most readers of this paper will be aware of Facebook and how social media platforms work in a general way. A part of Facebook that may not be so well known is their project Internet.org and its associated Free Basics app. Internet.org describes itself as "a Facebook-led initiative with the goal of bringing internet access and the benefits of connectivity to the portion of the world that doesn‘t have them." (Internet.org) Its main tool in carrying out its mission is an app called Free Basics which provides people with basic access to the internet for free. The idea is that populations in countries where internet access is poor or expensive can utilise a basic phone (which many people in said countries have but do not use for internet access) to surf the web and take advantage of its tools such as weather reporting, news, employment opportunities etc. While Free Basics, at first impression, sounds fantastically philanthropic (and undoubtedly partly is) it is also here where we most obviously encounter Facebook participating in electronic colonialism.
Electronic colonialism is the idea that new media is leading us into a new concept of empire, one that is based on colonising the mind rather than by physically invading countries. While the Free Basics app does give free access to the internet for those that use it, it does also have some limitations which are not highlighted by the Internet.org website quite as loudly. The app, while giving free internet access, does limit how much of the internet is available. Free Basics uses apps which are picked by Facebook and, as a result of this, Facebook has been accused of violating net neutrality rules. To further explain: while free internet is available through the Free Basics app, the access is confined to a limited selection of apps that Facebook has approved for use on the platform. In doing this Facebook can exclude its competitors and offer an internet that is vastly reduced in size to only a relatively small handful of Facebook approved services. In response to the accusations of its net neutrality violation Facebook has opened up the platform for independent software companies to develop apps for it, but software companies still have to abide by pre-set conditions and rules that Facebook has laid out in order for the software developers app to be accepted. While the accusations of net neutrality violation must clearly have some weight in current society for Facebook to respond as they have, accusations of electronic colonialism are less well documented.
In order to understand why electronic colonialism is perhaps less discussed I want to bring in the concept of hidden pipelines in relation to oil distribution. Firstly, there is the not so well known fact that the cabling which carries the internet across the world follows the same routes as existing oil pipelines. This link is further deepened by the invisibility of the pipes and cabling once their installation is complete. It is worth noting though that while electronic colonialism focuses on non-physical intrusions, the laying of internet cabling, mainly through pay-offs and bribery to those landowners affected, does still operate on a physical level during this process. In Pipeline Politics, Imre Szeman elaborates further: "Until recently, pipelines have not played a role in politics in large part because they were, on the whole, as socially invisible as they were physically distant and out of sight, neither encountered by the public in daily activity nor featured in their social imaginaries." (403) As concern over climate change has increased the dialogue around hidden oil pipelines has opened up however. As we encounter new developments and frontiers with the internet, maybe, in parallel with concern over climate change, the discourse around electronic colonialism will open up too. The CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is coming under increasing scrutiny over scandals that have hit his company that reveal the power of his platform. Szeman writes that "the presence of pipelines mirrors existing global divisions of power and wealth." (402) With pre-internet power structures taking a long time to understand and embrace the internet is Zuckerberg quietly becoming one of the most powerful unelected leaders of our time? In a further mirroring, Szeman writes that "pipeline infrastructure was developed as a device for controlling who would profit from the flow of oil; it was not merely a technical device for getting oil to customers." (403) With the above in mind it is clear how Facebook and Zuckerberg might also face similar accusations in relation to Internet.org and its Free Basics app.
Recent examples in the news media demonstrate how, as Facebook matures, it is coming up against unforeseen or unthinkable uses for its technology. The first to perhaps mention is the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 where a Facebook app developed by Cambridge Analytica was misused to harvest Facebook users' personal information without their consent. This information was then used for political marketing purposes. As a result Zuckerberg was forced into making a rare public appearance when he was called to appear before the United States Congress to face questions on the incident. Previously, concerns over privacy on the platform were washed away with adages such as 'if you have nothing to hide then you don't need to be worried' placing the emphasis on the user. The Cambridge Analytica scandal reversed this emphasis on to Facebook and Zuckerberg. Previously keen to keep the platform as open as possible it was the first milestone in a major change of emphasis on Facebook's behalf since its inception. The second milestone in this change of emphasis occurred following the use of Facebook's live streaming capabilities in the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand this year. The massacre that was live streamed on Facebook by the perpetrator resulted in 51 deaths and left 49 people injured. The prominent YouTuber Pewdiepie was also a feature of the event with the shooter shouting "subscribe to Pewdiepie" just before he began firing. As a result of this unprecedented and darkly historic world first, Zuckerberg reversed tack on his previous emphasis on Facebook being as open as possible. Recently he has ordered for all far-right content to be removed from the site. Zuckerberg also announced that the site would now be focusing on privacy as it's main concern going forward and has even gone as far as removing the blue colour from the visual look of the platform, something that has been a trademark feature since its inception.
What the above recent events prove is that the world, including Facebook and Zuckerberg, are slowly starting to wake up to the level of power that social media and the internet provide. Previously seen as a sort of benign contact tool, Facebook is now being used for aggressive political manoeuvring and the spreading of extreme ideology. I believe that Zuckerberg's naivety and/or belief in purist utopianism is partly to blame here. How did Zuckerberg and his team really think that their platform, which opens up the possibility for the first time for anyone to publish content to an audience that is potentially the entire world, think that not removing extremist content wouldn't result in an incident such as the Christchurch mosque shootings? Hopefully now you can see that while we live in a historically post-colonial era in relation to colonialism as we knew it, a new era of electronic colonialism - colonialism of the mind - is only just beginning. To further emphasise this it's important to keep in mind how populations previously received news and information in the pre-internet era. Previous to the mass take-up of the internet (which from personal experience occurred sometime around 2006) mass-media outlets only included the newspaper, radio and television. All three of these sources were/are controlled by a very small group of gatekeepers meaning that populations were (in comparison with now) very highly controlled in the knowledge that they had access to. With the internet we see a complete reversal of that situation due to its complete lack of gatekeepers. The difference this is making to humanity is another area that I believe is seriously under-acknowledged. I can now publish anything to the entire world for virtually nothing. I can learn as much information and knowledge as my brain can take without ever visiting a school or library. I can discuss issues and problems with people anywhere in the world instead of relying on a one way source of information from the newspaper, radio or television. What we are seeing is only the beginning, the possibilities and opportunities for human advancement are staggering and mind boggling if you pause and think about it at all.
Before this paper reaches its conclusion I would like to make one detour into cyborg anthropology. Cyborg anthropology is defined as "a discipline that studies the interaction between humanity and technology from an anthropological perspective. The discipline is relatively new, but offers novel insights on new technological advances and their effect on culture and society." (Cyborg Anthropology) There appears to be a connection between cyborg anthropology and electronic colonialism via the definition of cyborg which is traditionally defined as "a system with both organic and inorganic parts." (Cyborg Anthropology) Does then a service such as Facebook, accessed through the inorganic smart phone or personal computer, turn us into cyborgs? The answer can only be yes. In much the same way as the discovery of fire or the wheel enabled humanity technologically, so also does the internet and platforms such as Facebook. "In the broadest sense, all human interactions with technology could qualify as cyborg. Most cyborg anthropologists lean towards the latter view of the cyborg; some, like [academic] Amber Case, even claim that humans are already cyborgs because people's daily life and sense of self is so intertwined with technology." (Cyborg Anthropology) So electronic colonialism does work by turning its subjects into cyborgs if electronic colonialism works through the media and mass take up of the internet.
It is the conclusion of this paper therefore that Facebook perpetuates electronic colonialism to a great extent. The acknowledgment of this is largely underplayed or misunderstood by those responsible such as Mark Zuckerberg and our flailing western governments who were totally sidestepped (and continue to be so) by the rise of far-right ideology disseminated through Facebook and the internet. Try to imagine humanity as a person in room with no windows and the light switched off. This is how humanity could be characterised (relatively) up until the internet arrived. Suddenly a bright light has been switched on and the visibility gained is still in the early stages of comprehension. Pre-internet behemoths such as governments and industry appear to have shut their eyes. A mirroring of this occurred in the way the music industry reacted to file sharing for many years, even openly suing its own customers. Only fairly recently, with the success of streaming platforms such as Spotify and its ilk, has the music industry opened its eyes a little and stopped tilting at windmills. Where the internet and powerful publishing tools such as Facebook take us next should be taken very seriously indeed.
Bibliography
1. Wenzel, Jennifer. "Decolonization" A Companion to Critical and Cultural Theory. Edited by Imre Szeman et al., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017.
2. Internet.org, www.internet.org/. Accessed 27 Jun. 2019.
3. Szeman, Imre. “Pipeline Politics.” South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 116, no. 2, 2017, pp. 402–407.
4. “Cyborg Anthropology.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 May 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_anthropology. Accessed 27 Jun. 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment