The article “Facebook Loses a Battle in India Over Its Free Basics Program” discusses Mark Zuckerberg’s roadblock in his vision of “connecting the whole world”. Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook, has linked over a billion people all over the world. His effort to reach the poor and not-so technology-savy people of India through his Free Basics program was “shot down” by the regulations imposed by the Indian government. The Free Basics program is described as a “no-fee access to a text-only mobile version of the Facebook social network, as well as to certain news, health, job and other services”. Although Facebook claims that its goal is simply to provide access to the internet all over the world, the people of India began to question its true intentions as the program was mostly focused on promoting itself rather than the coalition of telecommunications firms that were supporting the effort.
The title of the article is a metaphor in itself. Facebook did not get into a physical altercation with anyone, especially not a battle. It was a simple disagreement that fit the metaphor simply because there were conflicting opinions. The title of the article shows our overuse of war terms in daily life. A battle is not a battle anymore, with guns and armies, but a simple dispute.
The metaphor you picked out is a perfect example of the “argument is war” metaphor in Lakoff’s reading. Although they have not engaged in actual combat, there is a heated argument over two imposing ideas. When arguments are viewed as battle or war, I don’t exactly see this as a bad thing. In a battle, you must completely dominate the enemy before they attack you. In an argument you must disprove your opponents claims while holding steadfast to your convictions.
I also agree that you gave a great example of “Argument is War”. People in India does not like the idea of the Free Basic Program, so it is reasonable that Facebook got rejected. However, even if Facebook was promoting itself, it can still be a benefit for people of India. So, therefore, it is a win-win situation. I wonder if Facebook will try to connect with China next.
I also read about it a couple of days ago on my way to the college. I know it is a lot of places all around the world where Internet and Facebook is something from “Tomorrowland!” . I understand that for us checking Facebook, Instagram, Twitter is our daily routine, but for almost 4.4 billion of people Internet is still behind the finish line. I can see positive and negative aspects of it even thou I understand that government is agains the Facebook and people probably will enjoy the Facebook all over the India. But let’s look at positive and negative sides of this battle. I prefer to start from negative first, people are spending 28% of their 24 hour day in Social Networking, which is almost 2 hours a day. If you invest this time in yourself (reading, fitness, ect.) vs. “likes” and posting your food or so you will be much more educated or healthy. Of course there are a lot of positive aspects of Internet such as news and social activities. I think everything is good in the right proportions.
Although Facebook and India were not in a physical battle, their legal disagreements certainly seem like one. Facebook fought the battle in India’s territory so it was unsurprising that India won the battle. India was protecting certain freedoms that they value highly and saw Facebook’s program as a threat.
Interesting that you say “a battle is not a battle anymore, with guns and armies…” It makes you question: do metaphors oversimplify the situation in which the original statement is being compared? Or does it over exaggerate situation at hand? Common sense says, an argument is incomparable in extent to a battle. But it is an eye-catching title and it’s easily understood by potential readers, like you said, in regards to what the article will be about. It’s clever.
You found a great metaphorical example that incorporates exactly what Lakoff and Johnson were describing; how we associate warfare with disputes. Comparing Zuckerberg’s efforts to extend his basic program to India to a battle helps us better understand the situation. Facebook was struggling to receive the right from the Indian government to provide it’s services to the people in need. While Zuckerberg’s company was on the “offensive” side of the battle, the Indian government assumed the “defensive” stance in the battle. It’s a very interesting perspective to use when analyzing disputes.