Is Zuckerberg today’s digital equivalent of an imperialist conqueror? / Hong Kong Radio 3
Mark Zuckerberg has come in for a lot of heat in the last week for his Free Basics a project announced last year to provide free internet access to developing nations.
In a Times of India op-ed piece Zuckerberg explained this initiative using the example of “a farmer named Ganesh, who would be able to find weather information and prepare for monsoons, look up commodity prices to get better deals, and invest in new crops and livestock” in response to which he received a tirade of negative comments likening him and Free basics to the imperialist British rule of India in believing that he knows what’s best for farmer Ganesh and in believing that he is providing him with everything he could possibly need.
The underlying furor is that Free Basics does provide free internet access, but the sites that can be accessed through it are limited, controlled by the sponsors, and currently do not allow access to sites like Google, but does give unfettered access to Facebook.
For me the debate goes beyond net neutrality to an age-old debate of imperialism where “to the victor belong the spoils“ and the provider, benefactor, conqueror, patron or whoever it may have been, has throughout history, been allowed to set the rules and the boundaries, this doesn’t mean it has to continue to be this way, or that it is or ever has been right or just.
Zuckerberg and others are on a noble quest to provide internet access to all and those that are receiving free internet are entitled to be disappointed if they are not getting what they thought they might, but to me this argument is an interesting spin on a days of yore belief that saw nations battle others nations with an understanding that when physical lands were conquered the victor imposed their will, laws and sovereignty on the vanquished, is today’s equivalent of conquering digital land and imposing will, laws and access rights on them not exactly the same?
This as well as Mark Zuckerberg’s other media piece this week about his desire to build himself a personal robot and a catch up on all the other tech news of the week were all part of my regular weekly catch up with radio Hong Kong 3’s Phil Whelan, so have a listen now (13 minutes 12 seconds) and then add your comments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What did Facebook’s Free Basics program reveal about the power dynamics of platform-controlled internet access?
Facebook’s Free Basics program — which offered zero-rated access to a Facebook-controlled subset of the internet in developing markets — raised fundamental questions about platform power: the framing of Free Basics as ‘connecting the unconnected’ obscured the structural reality that it would make Facebook the gatekeeper of what ‘the internet’ meant for hundreds of millions of new users; India’s rejection of Free Basics in 2016 (with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ruling that it violated net neutrality principles) was a significant and underappreciated regulatory decision that established the principle that carrier-controlled or platform-controlled internet tiers were incompatible with an open internet; and the ‘digital colonialism’ critique of Free Basics — that it replicated colonial patterns of providing access on terms set by the provider rather than the recipient — captured a genuine concern about the power dynamics of philanthropic technology deployments in the developing world.
Q: What does the platform internet access power question reveal about the stakes of digital infrastructure control?
The digital infrastructure control question has become more acute since 2016: the concentration of internet infrastructure in a small number of very large platforms (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) means that their architectural decisions determine what the internet is for most users; the submarine cable investments, satellite internet programs (Starlink), and data centre buildouts of these companies are creating private infrastructure that operates at national scale with limited public accountability; and the developing world context of these investments is particularly significant because the first-internet-experience of hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is being shaped by the infrastructure decisions of US-headquartered platforms. The power questions raised by Free Basics in 2015-2016 have not been resolved; they have become larger and more complex.
Q: What is the most important lesson from the Free Basics controversy for thinking about technology power and governance in 2026?
The Free Basics controversy established a template for thinking about technology power that remains relevant in 2026: ‘connecting people’ as a framing for platform expansion is seductive and not entirely dishonest — the platforms do provide genuine value — but it systematically obscures the power and commercial interests that the expansion serves; the appropriate response to platform power is not anti-technology but pro-governance — establishing the public interest principles (net neutrality, interoperability, data portability, competition) that define the terms on which platform power operates; and the regulatory decisions made in the 2015-2020 period about internet infrastructure have shaped the digital environment of 2026 in ways that make the quality of that regulation consequential for a generation. The governance of AI power is the current version of the same challenge.
Q: How can I book Morris Misel for a platform power, digital governance, or technology ethics keynote?
Contact the team at morrismisel.com/event-organisers.
Mark Zuckerberg has come in for a lot of heat in the last week for his Free Basics a project announced last year to provide free internet access to developing nations. In a Times of India op-ed piece Zuckerberg explained this initiative using the example of "a farmer named Ganesh.
When signals like Zuckerberg today’s digital equivalent of an emerge, organisations that engage early have the advantage of choosing their response rather than reacting to events. That gap between those who prepared and those who did not is where competitive positioning is actually made or lost.
The most important question is not whether Zuckerberg today’s digital equivalent of an will matter, but how quickly it will matter in your specific context. Leaders benefit most from mapping the ripple effects early — not just the direct impact but the second and third-order consequences that arrive later and hit harder. That is the practical work of foresight.
