tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/zero-rating-20321/articleszero-rating – The Conversation2018-12-05T11:40:57Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1064762018-12-05T11:40:57Z2018-12-05T11:40:57ZWhatsApp skewed Brazilian election, showing social media’s danger to democracy<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-whatsapp-fake-news-campaign">Misinformation via social media</a> played a troubling role in <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/12/fraude-com-cpf-viabilizou-disparo-de-mensagens-de-whatsapp-na-eleicao.shtml">boosting far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro</a> to into the Brazilian presidency. </p>
<p>Bolsonaro did not <a href="https://theconversation.com/bolsonaro-wins-brazil-election-promises-to-purge-leftists-from-country-105481">win 55 percent of votes</a> thanks to misinformation alone. A powerful desire for political change in Brazil after a yearslong corruption scandal and a court decision compelling the jailed front-runner <a href="https://theconversation.com/brazil-in-political-crisis-over-jailed-president-4-essential-reads-91143">Luis Inacio Lula da Silva</a> to withdraw from the race both opened the door wide for his win. </p>
<p>But Bolsonaro’s candidacy benefited from a powerful and coordinated disinformation campaign intended to discredit his rivals, according to <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/10/empresarios-bancam-campanha-contra-o-pt-pelo-whatsapp.shtml">the Brazilian newspaper Folha</a>. </p>
<p>Days before the Oct. 28 runoff between Bolsonaro and his leftist competitor, leftist Fernando Haddad, an investigation by Folha revealed that a conservative Brazilian business lobby had bankrolled the multimillion-dollar smear campaign – activities that may have constituted an illegal campaign contribution. </p>
<h2>Election scandal fallout</h2>
<p>Using WhatsApp, a Facebook-owned messaging service, Bolsonaro supporters delivered an onslaught of daily misinformation straight to millions of Brazilians’ phones. </p>
<p>They included doctored photos portraying senior Workers Party members celebrating with Communist <a href="https://piaui.folha.uol.com.br/lupa/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Relat%C3%B3rio-WhatsApp-1-turno-Lupa-2F-USP-2F-UFMG.pdf">Fidel Castro</a> after the Cuban Revolution, audio clips manipulated to misrepresent Haddad’s policies and fake “fact-checks” discrediting authentic news stories.</p>
<p>The misinformation strategy was effective because WhatsApp is an essential communication tool in Brazil, used by <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/brazil-2018/">120 million of its 210 million citizens</a>. Since WhatsApp text messages are forwarded and reforwarded by friends and family, the information seems more credible. </p>
<p>The fallout from Folha’s front-page report compelled WhatsApp to issue an apologetic <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/opiniao/2018/10/como-o-whatsapp-combate-a-desinformacao-no-brasil.shtml">op-ed</a>.</p>
<p>“Every day, millions of Brazilians trust WhatsApp with their most private conversations,” wrote WhatsApp’s vice president, Chris Daniels, in Folha. “Because both good and bad information can go viral on WhatsApp, we have a responsibility to amplify the good and mitigate the harm.” </p>
<p>The company announced that it would <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/how-whatsapp-is-fighting-misinformation-in-brazil/">purge</a> thousands of spam accounts in Brazil, clearly label messages to show that they had been forwarded, tighten rules on group messaging and partner with Brazilian fact-checking organizations to identify false news.</p>
<p>Brazil’s highest electoral court also created an <a href="http://www.tse.jus.br/imprensa/noticias-tse/2018/Outubro/conselho-consultivo-sobre-internet-e-eleicoes-discute-impacto-das-fake-news">advisory board on internet and elections</a> to investigate disinformation in Brazil’s 2018 election and propose regulations to limit its impact in future political processes.</p>
<h2>It’s a WhatsApp-defined world</h2>
<p>Brazil is only the latest country to learn that <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-killing-democracy-with-its-personality-profiling-data-93611">social media can undermine the democratic process</a>. </p>
<p>Numerous studies have confirmed that a toxic blend of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/25/facebook-fined-uk-privacy-access-user-data-cambridge-analytica">data mismanagement</a>, targeted advertisement and online misinformation also influenced the outcomes of the United Kingdom’s Brexit vote and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274">2016 U.S. presidential race</a>.</p>
<p>Brazil’s WhatsApp election scandal should be a wake-up call particularly for other developing world democracies, as revealed in <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/zeroratingcts#!/vizhome/zeroratinginfo/Painel1">research I recently presented</a> at the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum. </p>
<p>That’s because the conditions that allowed fake news to thrive in Brazil exist in many Latin American, African and Asian countries.</p>
<p>Internet access is very expensive in Brazil. A broadband connection can cost up to 15 percent of <a href="http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/economia/noticia/2017-02/brazils-national-average-household-income-capita-40016-2016">a household’s income</a> and mobile plans with unlimited data, common in rich countries, are rare.</p>
<p>Instead, mobile carriers entice users by offering “zero rating” plans with <a href="https://internet-governance.fgv.br/sites/internet-governance.fgv.br/files/publicacoes/belli_arcep_zero_rating_minitel_en.pdf">free access</a> to specific applications, typically Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. Nearly three-quarters of Brazilian internet users had these prepaid mobile-internet plans in 2016, according to the technology research center <a href="http://cetic.br/media/docs/publicacoes/2/TIC_DOM_2016_LivroEletronico.pdf">CETIC.br</a>.</p>
<p>Most Brazilians therefore have unlimited social media access but very little access to the rest of the internet. This likely explains why 95 percent of all Brazilian internet users say they mostly go <a href="https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/media/com_mediaibge/arquivos/c62c9d551093e4b8e9d9810a6d3bafff.pdf">online for messaging apps and social media</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the “rest of the internet” is precisely where Brazilians might have verified the political news sent to them on WhatsApp during the 2018 election. Essentially, fact-checking is <a href="https://www.cetic.br/noticia/acesso-a-internet-por-banda-larga-volta-a-crescer-nos-domicilios-brasileiros/">too expensive for the average Brazilian</a>.</p>
<h2>Concern over Africa’s elections</h2>
<p>Democracies in Africa, where more than a <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-africas-democratic-temperature-as-a-dozen-countries-prepare-for-polls-107675">dozen countries will hold elections in 2019</a>, are vulnerable to the same kind of lopsided access to information that influenced Brazil’s presidential vote.</p>
<p>As in Brazil, many Africans get <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets">stripped-down internet access</a> through Facebook’s Internet.org and Free Basics platforms. But, worryingly, most African countries have little or no data protection and no <a href="http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html">net neutrality</a> requirements that internet providers treat all digital content equally, without favoring specific apps. </p>
<p>In my analysis, Facebook and a handful of tech companies are now racing to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/luca-belli/scramble-for-data-and-need-for-network-self-determination">collect and monetize</a> the data gathered through sponsored apps, allowing them to profile millions of Africans. Lax government oversight means that <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/nir-eyal-hook-model/">people</a> may never be informed that they pay for these “free” apps by exposing their personal information to data mining by private companies. </p>
<p>Such personal information is exceedingly profitable to advertisers in Africa, where Western-style public polling and consumer surveys is still rare. It is easy to imagine how valuable targeted advertising would be for political candidates and lobbies in the lead-up to Africa’s 2019 elections. </p>
<h2>Move fast and break democracy</h2>
<p>Democracy cannot thrive when the electorate is intentionally misinformed about candidates, parties and policies. </p>
<p>Political debate driven by likes, shares and angry comments on social media increases <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">polarization</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-there-are-costs-to-moral-outrage-78729">distorts healthy public discourse</a>. Yet evidence shows that <a href="https://theconversation.com/audiences-love-the-anger-alex-jones-or-someone-like-him-will-be-back-101168">insults, lies and polemics</a> are what best drive the user engagement that generates that precious personal data. </p>
<p>For over a decade, social networks have been associated with free communication, unfettered by gatekeepers like news editors or fact-checkers. Many in Silicon Valley and beyond saw this <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-internet-freedom-a-tool-for-democracy-or-authoritarianism-61956">innovative disruption</a> as broadly beneficial for society. </p>
<p>That can be true when social networks are just one of many ways that people can engage in open and pluralistic debate. But when just a handful of apps are available to the majority of users, serving as the sole channel for democratic dialogue, social media can be easily manipulated to poisonous ends. </p>
<p>Mark Zuckerberg’s longstanding motto was, “Move fast and break things.”
That <a href="https://mashable.com/2014/04/30/facebooks-new-mantra-move-fast-with-stability/">catchphrase was retired in April 2018</a>, perhaps because it is increasingly evident that democracy is among the things that Facebook and friends have left broken.</p>
<p><em>The headline of this story was changed slightly after publication.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106476/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luca Belli receives funding from the Open Society Foundations, the Council of Europe, the Internet Society. The views expressed in this article do not represent the opinions of any entity with which he is associated.</span></em></p>Facebook retired its ‘Move fast and break things’ slogan – perhaps because, as new research from Brazil confirms, democracy is among the things left broken by online misinformation and fake news.Luca Belli, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, School of Law, Fundação Getulio VargasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/560492016-03-17T10:07:27Z2016-03-17T10:07:27ZNet neutrality may be at risk when companies like Netflix subsidize your data<p>The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/27/net-neutrality-timeline/">made net neutrality</a> the law of the land and pledged to enforce it when it issued its “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet">open Internet order</a>” 13 months ago. That ruling barred Internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating against certain types of traffic or creating pay-to-play fast lanes.</p>
<p>But a recent trend in the industry in which ISPs such as AT&T or Comcast allow consumers to stream certain content for free (without counting against their data quota) threatens to undermine net neutrality. Such practices, in which content companies typically subsidize or sponsor the bandwidth cost of their data, are known as “zero rating” plans. </p>
<p>So who wins and loses from this arrangement? Does it benefit consumers? And does it violate the FCC’s net neutrality rules, something the commission is currently investigating? </p>
<p>Using game theory, we created a framework in which to analyze the impact of these new zero rating plans, as well as the social welfare and policy implications – something particularly important as <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/273246-house-approves-transparency-carveout-for-small-internet-providers">Congress</a> and the courts continue to evaluate the FCC’s net neutrality rules.</p>
<h2>Origins of zero rating</h2>
<p>AT&T <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/01/att-sponsored-data/">was the first</a> to create a sponsored data plan in January 2014. Under the plan, the company decided to let data <a href="http://developer.att.com/apis/sponsored-data">subsidized</a> by app makers or other content providers pass through its network for free – that is, without consumers being charged against their monthly quotas. </p>
<p>It didn’t take long for its competitors to imitate the idea. </p>
<p>Verizon announced a similar “<a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/verizon-wireless-selling-data-cap-exemptions-to-content-providers/">FreeBee Data 360</a>” in January. The company said it was starting trials with AOL, Hearst Magazines and Lantern Software’s GameDay with full commercial availability later this year. </p>
<p>Comcast, meanwhile, allows subscribers to watch videos for free through its own <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/comcast-launches-online-tv-service-that-doesnt-count-against-data-caps">StreamTV service</a>. Streamers of Netflix and other providers must still use up their data.</p>
<p>T-Mobile’s <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html">Binge On program</a> allows subscribers to stream video from Netflix, Amazon and about 40 other sites on their phones without worrying about using up their data. In contrast to its rivals, the carrier so far hasn’t charged for the privilege but seems to favor the bigger providers.</p>
<p>The zero rating model got Facebook into trouble recently. Its <a href="https://info.internet.org/en/mission/">Free Basics platform</a> provides free Internet to a limited number of websites in countries like India, Kenya and Colombia <a href="http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/02/internet-org-app-now-available-in-india/">through local ISPs</a>. India’s telecom regulator <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10913398/free-basics-india-regulator-ruling">banned</a> Free Basics because it said it violates the principles of net neutrality. The <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21950">biggest objection</a> is that it offers only a few content providers that are chosen and controlled by Facebook. </p>
<p>Even Netflix, one of the biggest proponents of net neutrality, came under <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/3/8142899/netflix-net-neutrality-flipfl">criticism</a>. Its arrangement with Australian ISP iiNet allows consumers to stream Netflix content without worrying about running against their data cap. Netflix conceded that their arrangement could distort consumer choice, but at the same time it said that it “won’t put our service or our members at a disadvantage.” </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0AgG4fGMfRNdHdDNqak5kV01FTlVZMGFfSDc4SmlvMmc&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=425" width="100%" height="425" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>Provider’s dilemma</h2>
<p>In our <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2732077">research</a> on the topic, we developed a game theory model to analyze the impact and incentives of this type of data sponsorship given three players: a monopolist ISP and two content providers who want to maximize their customer reach. </p>
<p>Is there a risk that this type of plan would force the content providers – whether they are behemoths like <a href="http://www.netflix.com">Netflix</a> or promising upstarts like <a href="https://www.fandor.com">Fandor</a> – into a bidding war? And, as a result, produce a monopolistic digital content landscape that limits the amount of content available to consumers and tests the bounds of current net neutrality laws? </p>
<p>In our model, we found that under certain market conditions both content providers would pay to subsidize data going through the ISP, when in reality neither of them would prefer to do so. In effect, the content providers are in a classic “prisoner’s dilemma”: both would prefer not to pay – even if they have the wherewithal to do so – but both know that if they don’t pay, the other one will, and drive their rival out of the market. </p>
<p>Our research’s overarching finding is that the ISP always stands to gain when the content providers are subsidizing data usage fees – that is, it will always make more money as a result. The ISP, which knows the game’s results before it even starts, can therefore decide on a pricing strategy that forces both of them to pay.</p>
<p>Consumers and smaller content providers, on the other hand, both stand to lose. Since smaller companies are less able to afford the fees, they risk losing customers to the subsidized websites and apps. A content provider with an established revenue model can drive the others out of the market.</p>
<p>At first glance, zero rating plans would seem to be good for consumers because they allow users to consume traffic for free. But our research suggests the variety of content may be reduced, which in the long run harms consumers. </p>
<p>Once a plan with subsidized content is added, our research shows that many consumers might find that switching to that service – even if it’s deemed to be of lower quality – makes sense given the tradeoff: less favored content but lower connectivity costs. Thus, even a provider with higher-quality content could be completely driven out of the market if it is not in a position to pay to subsidize its data.</p>
<h2>Does it violate net neutrality?</h2>
<p>Supporters of net neutrality have argued that such arrangements contradict the spirit of <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944">net neutrality laws</a>, which hold that all content that is transmitted over the Internet should be treated equally – every single data packet, regardless of its origin, destination or content. </p>
<p>They contend that zero rating plans treat the subsidized packets <a href="https://law.stanford.edu/press/net-neutrality-expert-t-mobiles-binge-will-lead-internet-slippery-slope/">preferentially</a>, since consumers have more incentive to consume “free” packets over unsubsidized ones. The telecom companies, however, <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-says-sponsored-data-does-not-violate-net-neutrality/">claim</a> that these plans do not violate net neutrality because the sponsored data are delivered at the same speed and performance as the nonsponsored data. </p>
<p>Our study shows, however, that with a zero rating plan in place with one dominant content provider controlling the market, it would make it virtually impossible for new entrants to gain a foothold. </p>
<p>Essentially, zero rating plans undermine the core vision of net neutrality: ISPs should not act as gatekeepers that pick winners and losers online by favoring some content providers over others. </p>
<p>Subsidizing consumers in these zero rating plans will quickly become a way for certain content providers to get a leg up on competition. In digital content markets, it’s a self-perpetuating cycle: the stronger content provider can <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/in-silicon-valley-now-its-almost-always-winner-takes-all">keep getting stronger</a>. </p>
<p>For startups and entrepreneurs hoping to have their content spread naturally or virally – one of the ways the Internet has leveled the playing field – they are suddenly at a disadvantage after the introduction of data sponsorship. The ultimate result could be a digital marketplace with fewer options for consumers.</p>
<h2>Keeping an eye on zero rating plans</h2>
<p>The FCC is closely monitoring the practices of zero rating plans to see if they violate net neutrality laws. </p>
<p>In letters to AT&T and T-Mobile, the FCC <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/f-c-c-asks-comcast-att-and-t-mobile-about-zero-rating-services/">wrote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want to ensure that we have all the facts to understand how these services (data subsidization) relate to the commission’s goal of maintaining a free and open internet while incentivizing innovation and investment from all sources. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Chairman Tom Wheeler has sent mixed messages. While he has said the commission would be “keeping an eye on” the data subsidization programs, he has also praised them as “<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3054977/fast-feed/t-mobile-binge-on-video-streaming-program-accused-of-throttling-traffic-to-youtube">highly innovative and highly competitive</a>.” </p>
<p>Our research should help policymakers within the FCC and elsewhere better understand the impact of these zero rating plans and how they can result in less choice for consumers in the long run.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liangfei Qiu receives funding from Networks, Electronic Commerce, and Telecommunications (NET) Institute. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Soohyun Cho and Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Internet providers increasingly allow services to subsidize the cost of delivering their content to users. That may seem like a win for consumers, but game theory suggests otherwise.Liangfei Qiu, Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, University of FloridaSoohyun Cho, PhD student in Information Systems, University of FloridaSubhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Associate Professor, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.