Zero-rating refers to a practice where companies and internet service providers (ISPs) offer mobile phone users free access to parts of the internet i.e., the ability to visit certain sites and use certain applications without it counting towards your data usage. For instance, Facebook may agree with an ISP that all the ISP’s customers can enjoy unlimited use of Facebook without it contributing to their data usage. In this scenario, while anything else you do with your data will count towards your total data usage, you can use Facebook as much as you like.
This may seem like a good deal but in certain conditions, certain practises of zero-rating can be a substantial threat to certain human rights. However, in other situations, zero-rating can facilitate the exercise of certain human rights. I say “certain” as the impact of a particular form of zero-rating must be assessed in relation to particular rights in order to truly analyse its effects.
Zero-rating can have sinister effects on three interrelated rights – right to information, right to democracy, and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, zero-rating can also have positive effects on certain human rights such as the right to education and healthcare. Ultimately, the practice of zero-rating can cause significant risks to human rights in the right circumstances.
THE CURTAILMENT OF RIGHTS
The essence of zero-rating is free but limited access to the internet. Consequently, certain zero-rating practises hinder users’ ability to fact check by limiting the information they can access which can lead to dangerous consequences for the right to information, democracy, and freedom of expression.
Take the example of Brazil where WhatsApp is used by over half of the population as it is free via zero-rating offered by mobile carriers. In 2018, the integrity of Brazil’s presidential election was seriously doubted after it came to light that a deliberate misinformation campaign may have effected the outcome. Days before the election, voters were at the receiving end of a targeted misinformation campaign with fake “fact-checks” spread through WhatsApp which undermined authoritative information.
It is important to understand that zero-rating, by itself, was not the issue in this situation. The Cambridge Analytica scandal shows us that even with complete access to the internet coupled with robust protection of freedom of expression, even the most technologically advanced countries can face serious manipulation of information on social media that affects democratic processes. What makes a zero-rating practice, like that of WhatsApp in Brazil, particularly threatening to human rights is when it is the only economically viable option for internet access in a society. In Brazil, as an internet connection can swallow up to 15% of the household income, users rely on these practises. As Professor Belli points out that economically, no other opportunity exists to assess the information being presented.
Similarly, Free Basics is another dangerous variant of zero-rating. It is an initiative by Facebook which introduces users to the internet via Facebook and gives them access to a text-only version of Facebook along with some data-lite sites. As this zero-rating practice requires a predetermined list of accessible content to be curated, citizens have limited avenues to both obtain information and assess the reliability of information they are presented with. In Free Basics, users can only view the title of results in search engines. The effects of reading mere titles without access to pictures, videos, or a further news link misleads users as to the timeline and actual nature of events, thereby distorting the information they receive.
Incomplete information presented by zero-rating is a serious threat to the effective exercise of human rights as the zero-rating practises in question threaten the right to information by creating a “walled online space” beyond which one cannot validate the information one is being presented with. Here arises the main criticism of zero-rating which is that it is against net neutrality – the foundational principle that ISPs should treat all internet traffic in the same manner and not censor or interfere with data in any way. As zero-rating goes against net neutrality, it supports the perfect opportunity for political misdirection, of which Brazil is an apt example. Additionally, many users are unaware that they experience a heavily restricted version of the internet leading them to believe that Facebook is the internet. This in turn, weakens their ability to effectively participate in a democracy. Furthermore, research shows that corruption is more prevalent in the Global South which is also where zero-rating services are heavily deployed, thereby exacerbating the dangers of such services.
Relatedly, one’s ability to truly exercise freedom of expression is restrained if the sources one can consult are cherry-picked through the zero-rating service and pre-determined by content providers with the monetary resources to provide this for “free”. Essentially, what we get is “poor internet for poor people” – according to Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder of Paytm. This “poor internet” means citizens are unable to access information beyond the titles of the links which leaves them uninformed, or worse, completely misinformed. Furthermore, zero-rating can derail free speech efforts and abet authoritarian governments in their quest to limit access to information and avenues for expression. In such situations, what is needed is an open internet – not the taste of a severely downgraded pre-determined internet.
Proponents of zero-rating— especially Mark Zuckerberg —push back on these claims arguing that some access is better than no access. What they fail to understand is that the difference lies in the fact that today, more than ever before, information is power. When this power is restricted in an era where vital information is increasingly disseminated and obtained through the internet, we are creating an avenue for the manipulation of information and thus, power. Hence, the zero-rating services described above exploit socio-economic differences and threaten citizens’ ability to engage in free speech, access information, and participate in their democracy.
THE FACILITATION OF RIGHTS
Nevertheless, zero-rating practises can also allow users to better exercise their rights.
The onset of the pandemic adversely hit all sectors, education being one of the most affected. School closures led to more than 1.2 billion students being out of school. This had a drastic impact, especially on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the move to remote learning gained speed, the need for internet connectivity became urgent. It is in exactly these situations that zero-rating can play a crucially positive rule by allowing students to continue their education. In Colombia, the government asked mobile and internet operators to ensure that all educational services were zero-rated so that students could access them at no extra cost. Here, zero-rating was the only economically viable option to exercise the right to education and was so successful it was included in an OECD report on best practises in the educational sector during COVID-19.
Information about healthcare is a particularly important resource that one should be able to access. Considering the pandemic, the UK government partnered up with mobile carriers to provide zero-rated NHS websites. This ensured that first, misinformation was effectively tackled and second, public health was prioritised by giving everyone verifiable advice through the main government website.
In Australia, even before the pandemic, the government introduced a “no credit, no worries” zero-rating initiative. The aim was to use zero-rating to achieve health equality by reducing the cost barrier. Not only did the service allow people to use online services to access medical records, book appointments, and other services, but it also enabled them to obtain information on several health topics.
In such cases, zero-rating does not threaten human rights and in fact assists their fulfilment because the service provides authoritative sources of information, and thereby curbing misinformation. Their success lies in the fact that they tackle (and do not exacerbate) a narrow and specific problem. Moreover, in these cases, there is heavy involvement by the state. This is beneficial as the state can be held democratically accountable, provided it is an effective democracy.
Criticising zero-rating in these circumstances widens the socio-economic gap in society by assisting in the digital exclusion of certain individuals. It must be understood that offering free access to the internet is not an easy or cheap task. As Ard correctly points out, zero-rating is too new and contextual to determinatively ban or unrestrictedly allow. A strict loyalty to net neutrality in this case deprives citizens the ability to exercise their rights. Hence, in certain circumstances, zero-rating may be a vital service that helps individuals obtain the services and information they need at little to no cost. Hence, zero-rating can assist human rights.
ZERO-RATING AS A FORCE FOR GOOD AND BAD
Zero-rating is a controversial practice that seems to go against the core idea of net neutrality. Indeed, as shown above, it can be a highly oppressive and punitive tool that negatively impacts civic rights of expression and democratic participation by controlling the information one can access. However, this is limited to particular forms of zero-rating. Other forms of zero-rating can be a tool in aiding individuals to gain access to the right information and services and bridge the differing socio-economic impact in times of disaster. Therefore, risks to human rights from zero-rating are valid but need to be placed in context.
Aishwarya is a third-year law student at University College London. She is an aspiring barrister hoping to work in areas at the intersection of law and technology.