Why We Need Net Neutrality

The internet is a vast, unfathomable source of information. There exist over 1 billion websites today, with approximately 1, 40,000 new websites created every day. This gives us access to more information than our ancestors would have ever imagined. The internet connects you to the most important as well as the most quirky things on this planet – don’t know how to describe your emotion? Here is the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.  Wonder how your income compares to Warren Buffet’s? Penny Stocks will tell you.

The beauty of the internet lies in this: our ability to access the most inconsequential information to the most vital pieces of information with equal ease. We don’t have to wait longer for certain websites to load as compared to others. We don’t have to pay more to be able to view certain websites. The internet is an egalitarian forum, giving its users access to content previously unparalleled, in terms of quality and quantity. This is the basic concept of net neutrality.

Now imagine a world where only a small, selected number of websites from this vast universe are available to us, albeit free. For every website falling outside the listed ones, we will have to pay. The speed will vary; the non-listed websites will load slowly. The internet will no longer be equal-for-all: it will be a hierarchy of free to the most expensive websites. This is what Airtel-zero, Reliance, other Internet Service Providers and most recently Facebook, through its Free Basics campaign, are working towards.

The internet, since its creation, has been a platform for innovation. It has seen companies grow and create millionaires, simply by its ability to reach out to billions. One such example would be Facebook. Facebook started as a small network to emerge as the largest social network in the world today. Why? Because the internet let it. It did not require extra payment to load a new website called Facebook. It did not load Facebook slower because it was not ‘basic.’ And therein lies the irony of the current situation: Facebook’s attempt at regulating the very platform whose competitive and democratic nature let it grow.

Net neutrality allows this level-playing field where websites compete with one another solely on the basis of content. Competitive environments have been linked to growth, innovation, and greater consumer satisfaction. Free Basics and other campaigns against net neutrality will create a restrictive market of sorts, where some websites are easily available to the public as compared to others, and will consequently draw higher traffic. After all, who wants to pay for something when there exists a free alternative?  Imagine the adverse impact it will have on an economy that prides itself for boosting the growth of start-ups. 

On a more individualistic note, net neutrality gives us the freedom to be who we are. The content we consume on the internet is an expression of our virtual identity, a phenomenon that has been rising in importance in today’s digital age. If the internet is truly a basic democratic right, should it not allow individuals the freedom to exercise choice without making them pay more for it?

And most importantly, Free Basics and other campaigns give an external agency the authority to decide what is and what is not basic. Facebook will have the right to decide the websites we can view for free and those we must pay for, making Facebook the power hub of the internet. The internet, which has been a compelling force against authoritarianism through free and immediate access, will no longer possess the alacrity it previously did. Websites will have to go through the procedure of becoming ‘partners’ with Facebook for their website to gain free access.

The case put forth by Facebook in support of Free Basics is this: it will provide internet access to those who have none, in synch with Modi’s Digital India programme. But it will simultaneously give Facebook the opportunity to increase its user base by millions, potentially protecting it from competition from any quarter. Interestingly, majority of our population already considers Facebook the entire entity of the internet experience, with an overwhelming 58% responding to the statement, ‘Facebook is the internet’ in affirmative.

The issue of net neutrality is unlikely to reach a complete resolution soon, given the complexities that underlie it. But it is important to consider the effect a restrained, throttled internet will have, even if it is available to everyone. Surely there are ways of making the Internet available to everyone without compromising on its fundamental virtues. USA found a way through it, successfully enforcing net neutrality. It is now time for India step up and stay true to its virtue of being the world’s largest democracy: giving its people the same equality in the virtual world as it promises in reality.   

 Chinmayee Kantak

Is it Love at First Swipe?

Online dating sites are battling against each other to provide individuals with access to millions of potential dates everyday. In his book “The Paradox of Choice”, Schwartz questioned the assumption that more choice means better options and greater satisfaction. The more choices we have, the less likely we are to narrow down and stick to one option. If this was the case, dating apps would leave their customers unsatisfied, and yet, there has been a surge in the number of individuals who are turning to the internet to find love. So what is it about these apps that are leaving their customers wanting more?

            Tinder is the latest big addition to the online dating world. It is an app that identifies available heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or “curious” partners in the vicinity, and requires users to judge the pictures of fellow Tinderers by swiping right (like the profile) or left (do not like the profile). With an estimated 450 million profiles rated everyday and membership growing by 15% each week, the app has witnessed a 400% increase in downloads in India over the past year. Further, in a country where women are seen as shy and reserved, it was surprising that they were found to be more active in using the application than men. This conceptualizes the perception of Tinder usage in India, and of the online dating world in general, where individuals consider these sites/apps as safe places to have harmless conversation.

            Tinder is “a fun way to waste time with people you’d never want to date in real life”. In our technosexual era, the process of dating has been gamified by technology, where the real pleasure is derived from the process of using Tinder. B.F. Skinner studied operant conditioning in order to determine how different kinds of positive reinforcements in our environment affect our future behavior. He found that when some form of positive reinforcement followed a behavior, we were likely to repeat this behavior in the future. Applying Skinner’s classical theory to the very Modern Tinder, one could say that the positive reinforcement of a match between two strangers on tinder increases the chances of swiping right. Clinical psychologist Dr. Wendy Walsh concluded that the whole concept of the matching game and texting each other had become so much fun that the relationship never moved into the real world.

            Tinder simply pulls out photos and basic data from Facebook; allowing users to judge others based on their appearance alone. This is exactly the sort of scenario that most women say they want to stay away from, and yet, the app is particularly popular among women in India. In a way, we see “the manifestation of our cultural obsession with appearance and attention deficits” through a process that mimics the arranged marriage system in our country. So whether it is in person, on Tinder, or through the arranged marriage system, the same principle seemed to be followed: seeking what we want and avoiding what we don’t.

            Rising education, urbanization, and the use of matrimonial sites has created a platform where “arranged marriages have morphed into a culturally appropriate alternative to online dating”.   The development of apps like Tinder provides a platform for women (and men, for that matter) to express their choice in an atmosphere that otherwise imposes severe restrictions. Further, it provides a safe place for young women to exercise their desire of looking for something casual that does not have to materialize into a long-term relationship. Therefore, even though an array of choices can lead to indecisiveness, the option of having a choice is a novelty to many in our country.

Nikita Wadhwa

Social Media as e-Word of Mouth & its Impact on Online Consumer Behaviour

Human Interaction has been increasing over the past decade, a phenomenon that has been synchronous with the advent of Social Media. Social Media (SM) is a term constructed out of two words. “Media” means to advertise and communicate information and ideas through channels or publications, while the word “Social” means interaction among a group of people or a community.

The rapid growth of online SM platforms has shifted the crux of real-world social interactions to the virtual world. This shift in preference of interaction modes has led to the creation of a vast online community that brings people together from all across the globe. With the ever increasing penetration of SM, a different form of word-of-mouth has sprouted into significance, i.e. electronic Word of Mouth (e-WOM).

E-WOM has emerged as one of the major forms of marketing communication among consumers. The online community of millions of people ensures that there is a constant flow of opinions, information and feedback on products, services, and/or organizations. E-WOM is defined by Hennig-Thurau et al (2004) as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet”.

E-WOM is of particular significance in the purview of e-commerce and online shopping sites. In most cases, a potential online shopper will have their own set of beliefs and preconceived notions of a product or service he intends to purchase. However, owing to the perceived risk involved in online shopping, they tend to observe and survey experiences of others, preferably within their immediate SM network.  A study conducted by Archak, Ghose and Ipeirotis showed that though the reviews generated through e-WOM by SM users are subjective and unverifiable, consumers often consider them as more believable and trustworthy than official descriptions or propositions.

 A study by Park, Lee and Han discussed the role that reviews played in online shopping decisions. According to them, a product or service will usually have either a positive or a negative review. Each of these can be further segregated into an Attribute-based (Informative) or Simple Recommendation review. Another factor for a consumer to consider is the number of reviews for a product / service.  For a low-involvement consumer, a higher number of reviews give them an inkling of the perceived popularity of the product, positive or negative. Irrespective of the quality or quantity of the information, the overall sentiment of the reviews is usually echoed by the consumer, i.e. recommendation is of a bigger significance than information.

For a high-involvement consumer, informativeness of a review holds greater significance than its overall perceived popularity. Fewer attribute-based reviews that detail the elements of the product / service have a higher chance of influencing the purchase, relative to a high number of simple recommendation reviews. This may hold true for both positive, as well as negative reviews.

Given the connectivity of Internet, increasing penetration of online shopping websites, and the ever evolving SM ecology, consumers have the platform to easily discuss and exchange online shopping experiences and information with each other. This holds the power to influence not just the brand, but also the website of choice for a potential consumer to make his/her purchase. Such peer communication through SM is a developing form of Consumer Socialization, and has profound impacts on consumer behaviour.

Further research is warranted to understand the impact of information overload caused by the plethora of reviews. Another key issue for research in the future could be how consumers view reviews, with respect to its credibility. Organizations are known to remove or hide negative reviews, hence increasing the possibility of a consumer potentially doubting the excess of positive reviews. E-Word of Mouth on Social Media and reviews on e-commerce websites have truly recreated and evolved the shopping experience of consumers.   

  Jegannath Ramanathan