Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook recently announced a new initiative, Internet.org, aimed at bringing the Internet to those who currently lack access. This announcement has, unsurprisingly, received mixed reactions.
As a co-founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg obviously has a vested interest in expanding internet access, and thus his potential market, to the developing world. There are currently nearly 5 billion people without access to the Internet, and connecting even a small percentage of those communities would open up a vast untapped market for Facebook and its subsidiaries. Both Internet.org and Google’s similar venture, Project Loon, have come under fire for prioritizing Internet access over more blatant needs such as sanitation and health care. Bill Gates was one vocal critic, saying,
Hugh Whalan, CEO of Impact Energies, expands upon this point in his article, "How Misinformed Ideas About Profit Are Holding Back The World's Poor." Whalan argues that "even the poorest people are still consumers...Collectively they spend over 5 trillion dollars a year, roughly equal to the third largest GDP in the world." (3) Tapping this market can not only be profitable, but it can also introduce competition into the marketplace, benefiting consumers. So where do we draw the line between chasing profits and helping those who lack access to basic human needs with thought of financial compensation? Or does this line even need to be drawn? Is charging the poorest of the poor exploitation, or does the access offered to the global marketplace give them the opportunity needed to pull themselves out of poverty?
"When you're dying of malaria, I suppose you'll look up and see that balloon, and I'm not sure how it'll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that. Certainly I'm a big believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we're going to do something about malaria." (1)Gates has a point. Being able to chat with your friends on Facebook doesn't help much when you're dying of hunger. But he may be understating the potential social impact of the Internet. Using the spread of mobile phones as a model, we can see the enormous potential good of inter-connectivity. It is estimated that an increase in mobile data usage corresponds with GDP growth, and there is a clear connection between productivity and technology. (2) The Internet would both expand on these benefits and offer a vast array of new products and technology. Mobile banking, weather forecasting, access to educational information...the possibilities offered by the Internet are too numerous to name.
Hugh Whalan, CEO of Impact Energies, expands upon this point in his article, "How Misinformed Ideas About Profit Are Holding Back The World's Poor." Whalan argues that "even the poorest people are still consumers...Collectively they spend over 5 trillion dollars a year, roughly equal to the third largest GDP in the world." (3) Tapping this market can not only be profitable, but it can also introduce competition into the marketplace, benefiting consumers. So where do we draw the line between chasing profits and helping those who lack access to basic human needs with thought of financial compensation? Or does this line even need to be drawn? Is charging the poorest of the poor exploitation, or does the access offered to the global marketplace give them the opportunity needed to pull themselves out of poverty?
Sources:
(1): http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-08/bill-gates-on-his-foundations-health-and-education-campaigns#p1
(2) http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/mobile-phones-lifting-the-worlds-economies-report/6705
(3) http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/mobile-phones-lifting-the-worlds-economies-report/6705
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.