Dropbox vs. Google Drive: Which cloud storage is right for you?

 Google’s Drive and Dropbox are two of the most popular options for cloud storage and backup. Which makes sense, because the two platforms compete with each other intensely. Which one is right for you? That’s a complex question, and it comes down to several factors: your budget, your total backup needs, and which platforms you want to use them on. 

Unsurprisingly, Google Drive works best if you’re heavily invested in Google’s other systems: Android, Chrome OS, and the Google Workspace suite of web apps. It’s also a better value in general. Dropbox is a better choice if you’re more concerned with speed and performance, and are willing to pay for it. 

Pricing 

At the consumer level, both companies offer at least one approximately comparable plan for cloud storage. Here’s a quick breakdown of the various plans and prices: 

Storage tier	Google Drive/Google One	Dropbox
2GB	–	Free (bonuses available)
15GB	Free	–
100GB	$2 a month	–
200GB	$3 a month	–
2TB	$10 a month	$12 a month (one user only), $20 a month for 6 users
3TB	–	$20 a month (one user only)
5TB	$25 a month	$45 per month/3 user minimum, $15 for each extra user
10TB	$50 a month	–
20TB	$100 a month	–
30TB	$150 a month	–
Unlimited	–	$75 per month/3 user minimum, $25 for each extra user

As you can see, Google Drive (also known as Google One) offers both more initial, free storage, and more and cheaper options at different levels of storage. Dropbox users can boost their free storage by getting friends to sign up with referral codes, up to 16GB. But making users essentially do your marketing for you to get what’s free elsewhere isn’t a great value proposition. 

Both companies offer discounts for paying yearly instead of monthly. But in terms of bang for your buck, Dropbox really only makes sense for individual users who want up to two terabytes of storage, or for teams of users who need an absolutely huge amount: more than Google Drive’s maximum 30TB.

Also, while Google allows free users to access Drive from anywhere and on unlimited devices, Dropbox makes users pay for more than three devices to have easy access via dedicated apps. You can get around this limit by using the Dropbox browser tool, but it’s a pretty huge barrier for free users.

Integration 

Google also wins out on integration with different platforms. The Google Drive system is built into most Android phones and tablets, all Chrome OS-powered devices, and it’s the default way to save files in Google Docs and other Google Workspace tools. On top of that, Google Drive/One apps are available on iOS and Windows, allowing for easy uploads and downloads. 

Dropbox is also available pretty much everywhere, but its integration is less seamless on mobile and Chrome OS. While it’s possible to upload and download to Dropbox on almost any platform (via the browser if not a dedicated app), it may take a few more steps. The three-device limit on a free Dropbox account is a big limiter here, too. 

Both Google Drive and Dropbox integrate with a variety of other often-used services, like Microsoft Office, Slack, Adobe Creative Cloud, Zoom, et cetera. Dropbox even lets you sign in with a Google or Apple account, if you like.

Usability

While Google is a clear winner on value, and they’ve made it easy to access your files on multiple platforms, Dropbox still has an edge on usability, in my opinion. Google Drive tends to treat its storage as one big pool of data, and while it has support for the basic directory system of folders most PC users are used to, the platform would prefer you to use its built-in search tools. 

Dropbox, on the other hand, assumes that you generally know where you put your stuff, and makes it easy to navigate through folders and sub-folders either on an app or in a desktop directory. It’s not effortlessly intuitive, but it’s familiar to anyone who’s been using desktops and laptops for most of their adult lives. It’s a PC-first approach, rather than the (perhaps understandable) mobile-style interface of Drive. 

Performance 

While Google Drive is by no means slow, Dropbox gets the edge in performance, too. When trying to upload massive amounts of both large and small data, Dropbox gave me consistently faster upload speeds. That’s a notable consideration if you plan on hitting your storage hard and frequently. 

Dropbox also has a feature that makes it faster to send files around your local network: LAN sync. This tool allows files added to your Dropbox account to start copying over local Ethernet or Wi-Fi connections even before they’re fully uploaded to the cloud. In practical terms, this makes a file added on your phone (say, a new photo you took of your pet) appear almost instantaneously in the Dropbox folder on your Windows or MacOS computer, so long as both devices are connected to the local network. 

It’s a small but crucial advantage if what you’re really looking for is a bucket of syncing storage that’s quick and easy to access. 

Sharing storage and PC backup 

As you might expect, Google comes out ahead in terms of sharing storage between family members. While Google One plans can be shared with up to five extra family members (for a total of six users) on the cheapest $2 a month tier, Dropbox only unlocks this option once you start paying $20 a month for 2TB of storage.

Individual files can be shared easily on both platforms, and there’s not much of a difference between Google Drive and Dropbox if you’re sharing accounts. But unless you need a truly massive amount of storage on Dropbox, Google Drive is better in terms of value if you want to share that storage between two or more users. 

Both systems offer tools to back up your PC’s files to the cloud in a system-wide fashion… sort of. While it’s certainly possible to treat Google Drive or Dropbox as a cloud backup system, these platforms really aren’t designed for a regular emergency backup. Their slow upload speed and cumbersome backup tools put them well behind dedicated services like Carbonite or Backblaze. I wouldn’t give either one extra points of this feature. (For more on this topic, see our roundup of the best cloud backup services.)

Extras 

On top of the above tools, there are less tangible advantages to both systems. Purchasing extra Google Drive storage via the Google One system gets you: 

·         Shared space for Gmail messages/attachments and Google Photos 

·         Free access to the Google One VPN on Android 

·         Discounts on purchases in the Google Store 

·         Occasional deals on travel and other items 

How about Dropbox? Once again, Dropbox is more stingy with its tools, unlocking some of its more premium options under more expensive consumer or business accounts. Even the full text search, a fairly basic tool that you can perform yourself on local files in just about any OS, isn’t available at the free tier. Once again Dropbox’s more stingy nature is hurting it in this comparison. 

Google Drive is the clear winner 

While Dropbox has a superior interface and user experience (at least for people who prefer conventional PC-style file systems), and its performance and LAN sync tools can leave the competition in the dust, Google is offering a better product and a better value on almost all other points of comparison. 

From the price of premium storage, to integration with desktop and mobile operating systems, to less tangible bonuses as part of the Google One system, Drive is a clear winner. That’s doubly true if you’re looking to stick to free tools. 

Which isn’t to say that Dropbox is necessarily a bad choice. That extra performance and better interface might be worth it, especially for users who don’t necessarily need the massive amount of storage Google offers. Just be aware of the trade-off in value.

By Michael Crider

Source:  PCWorld NOV 9, 2021

Reading should always be in vogue

 “A book is a gift you can open again and again”   says Garrison Keillor. My father inculcated and nurtured my reading habit as he took me to local book exhibitions when I was young and made sure that I enrolled myself in the Goa State Central Library, then housed in Institute Menezes Braganza, Panjim. As a kid, as my reading grew, books espoused my curiosity to understand the world better. A study conducted by B Greene in 2001 says it aptly “Reading habit is best formed at a young impressionable age in school, but once formed it can last one’s lifetime”.

Reading encourages sound scholastic development of the mind. The most direct outcome of the reading is it strengthens vocabulary and leads to a fluid formation of comprehensible sentences. Reading allows the mind to go through an assortment of characters, their lives, ambitions, nuances thus allowing it to weave a story. It empowers and emancipates citizens, and it brings people together. It helps to form opinions and guide one’s judgements. It fuels up the imagination and makes us receptive to new ideas. It allows and fosters re-thinking and questioning about themes to which non-readers cling without any understanding. It allows one to be empathetic and liberal in viewing society. Reading is an investment that pays rich dividends in life.

However, reading habit has taken a backseat in this online world. There are three essential steps for any habit to form: a trigger, the process and a reward, says Adam Grant. This method has been mastered by the greatest distractors of all time: the social media giants! The smartphone notification (the trigger), countless feeds of pictures/videos (the process) and instant gratification one gets (the reward) fully utilise the caveat of habit formation. While on the other hand, reading a book or a newspaper compels the effortful mind to think over facts and assimilate the ideas. Though development in technology has brought books at our fingertips in the form of e-books, e-magazines or e-journals, it has been poorly successful in imbibing the reading habit. This notion is bolstered by the scene of students in the reading rooms of libraries seen fiddling with the smartphone screens.

The advent of audio books has tried to replace the traditional methods. Lack of dedicated time (or will for it) for reading has been monetised by companies that offer books to listen to on the go. Since the brain cannot multitask effectively, listening to a book while doing chores does not allow us to absorb the essence of a book. In contrast, reading a book evokes undivided attention and facilitates the development of focusing ability, thus also leading to more absorption of the contents.

I consider custodians of a library to be the luckiest people on earth, while the visitors to be next in the hierarchy to be lucky! However, as we move up through the educational hierarchy, the tradition of visiting a library slowly disappears from the curriculum. The students are embroiled with the syllabus and supplied with readymade notes, thus diminishing the need to visit a library. Therefore, visiting the library must be allocated a place in the regular timetable.

 

Source: Herald, 11/11/21

Quote of the Day

 

“There has never been an age that did not applaud the past and lament the present.”
Lillian Eichler Watson

“ऐसा कोई युग कभी नहीं रहा जिसमें अतीत का गुणगान और वर्तमान पर विलाप न किया गया हो।”
लिलियन आइक्लर वॉटसन

Current Affairs-November 10, 2021

 

INDIA

– J&K: Srinagar joins UNESCO Creative Cities Network 2021 under crafts, folk arts category

– J&K: Army personnel posted in Kashmir can pursue courses from Valley varsity now

– NITI Aayog announces five top aspirational districts in education sector for September; Bhupalpally in Telangana tops the ranking

– National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) observes Legal Services Day on Nov 9

– Mazagon Dock delivers fourth Scorpene Submarine ‘Vela’ to Indian Navy; first 3: Kalvari, Khanderi, and Karanja

– Uttarakhand formation day celebrated on Nov 9; state formed on Nov 9, 2000

– Nepalese Army Chief Gen Prabhu Ram Sharma visits India

– Former Andhra University VC Koneru Ramakrishna Rao dies at 89

ECONOMY & CORPORATE

– RBI to hold its first-ever hackathon, HARBINGER 2021, on payments system

– RBI lifts restrictions on Diners Club, allows onboarding of fresh customers after the card issuer met RBI norms on local data storage

– Govt notifies amended minerals concession rules to ease pricing pressure

– Deocha-Pachami coal mine project in Birbhum district of West Bengal: CM announces ₹10,000 crore compensation package for land losers

– Centre amends Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011 for enhanced protection of Consumer Rights

WORLD

– COP26: India to co-lead Integrated Biorefineries Mission aimed at replacing fossil fuels

– COP26: Global index for measuring resilience to climate risk launched; will provide a globally consistent model for the assessment of resilience across all sectors and geographies.

– Czech Republic: Parties sign power-sharing deal to form new government

– Nicaragua: Daniel Ortega (75) wins fourth consecutive presidential term

SPORTS

– Alireza Firouzja (18) of France wins FIDE Chess.com Grand Swiss chess tournament

– Mitrabha Guha (20) becomes India’s 72nd chess Grand Master

– ITTF Ecuador International Open table tennis tournament: India’s Manush Shah (men’s) and T. Reeth Rishya (women’s) win singles titles

‘HARBINGER 2021 – Innovation for Transformation’ – RBI’s first global hackathon

 

Key Points

• The global hackathon will be organised under theme of ‘Smarter Digital Payments’.
• It will witness participants to identify and develop solutions which can be used:

1. To make digital payments accessible to the under-served
2. To enhance the ease of payments & user experience
3. To strengthen the security of digital payments and
4. to promote customer protection.

• The hackathon is inviting innovative ideas in payment & settlement system.
• Registration for the hackathon can be done till November 15, 2021.

What this hackathon is about?

Through this hackathon, RBI seeks ideas on easy-to-use, innovative, non-mobile digital payment solutions to convert small-ticket cash transactions into digital mode to remove physical act of payment. It also seeks to develop alternate authentication mechanism for digital payments. Under the hackathon, RBI will also seek social media analysis monitoring tool to detect digital payment fraud and disruption.

Prize Money

The participants of the hackathon will get an opportunity to be mentored by industry experts and exhibit their innovative solutions. Their solutions will be analysed by eminent jury. They will win prizes in each category. Winner will get Rs 40 lakh while runner-up will get Rs 20 lakh.

Unequal access to toilets remains a worry, and is central to global feminist movement

 

Inadequate toilet accommodations reflect society’s bias against women in the workplace and public spaces and reinforce the notion that women belong at home

Kalpana Narvekar lives in a ramshackle slum, encroached across two office buildings in Mumbai’s commercial Fort district. The nearest public toilet is well over 15 minutes away by foot. Navrekar and her three young children either walk to the public toilet or relieve themselves on the side of the road, which is often the case. For her sons, this usually isn’t a problem but for Navrekar and her daughter, every time they need to use the toilet, they risk exposing themselves to strangers. In one particularly troubling incident, her daughter, who was suffering from diarrhoea, could not hold it long enough to find a secluded spot. As a result, she was forced to defecate near a busy road and was verbally abused by several motorists who were mostly men.

Lack of access to public toilets is a wide-spread problem in India. For women, whose bodies are particularly objectified, this poses massive ramifications in terms of safety, comfort, and health. Compounding the problem, public infrastructure is designed to cater to men. A report in 2012 found that there are almost twice as many public toilets for men than there are for women in Mumbai. Additionally, the toilets that do exist, lack proper hygiene standards and are often unsafe. A 2017 study by ActionAid India found that 35 per cent of the 229 toilets surveyed in Delhi did not have a separate section for women, 53 per cent did not have running water and 45 per cent did not have mechanisms to lock the door from inside.

Globally as well, the issue of unequal toilet access has a special place in the feminist movement. In 2012, women in China protested against the lack of public toilets for women by using men’s lavatories. In America, advocacy has resulted in legislation that mandates building standards which prioritise women’s restrooms, and laws that prohibit commercial spaces from failing to provide adequate facilities for women. The so-called potty parity movement is not a critical component of the feminist movements today, however, it is a topic worthy of consideration given the significant ramifications of une

How it works

Studies have shown that women take, on average, twice as long to use the restroom as men. These studies consider only the time used to urinate and don’t factor in the use of a bathroom as a social space. According to John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University and the ‘father of potty parity,’ there are a number of factors that contribute to this divide. For men, using the toilet usually involves zipping down their pants and peeing into a urinal. In contrast, women have to unbutton their clothing, pull down their pants and make contact with the toilet seat whenever they pee. One in four women are also menstruating at any given point, which increases bathroom time due to the need to use and dispose of sanitary products. Additionally, two groups that take longer on average to pee include children and the elderly. Given that women are often responsible for childcare, and that there are more older women than men, this also contributes to the problem. Perhaps most importantly, urinals take up less space than cubicles, so men’s restrooms tend to accommodate more people at a time.

Speaking with indianexpress.com, Banzhaf states that having to use the restroom is an “immutable problem,” and therefore, denying women the same provisions as men violate their right to equality enshrined by law. Having to wait longer to use the restroom, or not having access to one at all, can cause a myriad of problems. Banzhaf notes that women often suffer from medical issues for having to hold in their pee and have fewer opportunities to network and socialise at public gatherings. Referring to the constraints as a “urinary leash,” Banzhaf argues that for many women, the lack of access to toilet can be a deterrent from straying too far away from home.

Additionally, for women in male dominated fields like construction and agricultural work, lack of toilet access can even prevent them from working. In 2004, Danish Khan, a Mumbai-based reporter, surveyed a number of public toilets in the city’s railway stations. He found that most toilets were closed due to clogged drains and some stations lacked facilities for women altogether. This in turn, he asserts, disincentives women from using public transportation, and limits their ability to work.

Kathreyn Anthony, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois, who spoke with indianexpress.com, argues in a seminal paper on potty parity, that long lines for women’s restrooms can also have commercial implications especially at venues like sporting stadiums and concert halls when the demand for toilets peak at particular times. “Rather than face a long wait,” says Anthony, “women feel compelled to curtail or avoid liquid intake” which means they’re less likely to purchase concessions than men. The lack of availability and cost of sanitary products similarly hinder their ability to access and enjoy public spaces. Pregnant women and women with UTIs who find it harder to hold in their pee are also disproportionately affected.

While it is impossible to measure the economic and social costs of unequal access, Anthony does point to several scenarios that highlight the need for potty parity. She notes that in New York, several female taxi drivers quit their jobs because of a lack of public toilets while male drivers often just peed in a jar under their seat. Additionally, Anthony argues that while men can use unhygienic toilets, women, who have to touch the seat while peeing, face particular health risks from doing so. She also mentions that paid toilets, which have now been discontinued in the US, discriminate against women because men can use urinals for free and can pee in open spaces. In India, paid toilets still exist.

The impure woman

Despite the fact that toilets play a significant role in our lives, historically, very little consideration has been given to female restrooms. According to Harvey Molotch, a Distinguished Professor at NYU, who spoke with indianexpress.com, this is because women are associated with “purity and cleanliness.” People don’t like to think of women using the toilet, which in turn, stigmatises the issue. The lack of discussion around women’s toilets means that in terms of policy, very little is done. According to Molotch, women are considered to be guardians of the home, and few public spaces were designed to accommodate their needs. Since 1857, the American Institute of Architects has had 97 presidents, of which, only five have been women. Lack of representation of women in architecture and construction reflects the lack of priority given to their sanitation needs equal toilet access.

Until very recently, workplaces dominated by men failed to include provisions for women.In fact, it took until 2011 for female Representatives to get their own toilets in the US House. Up till then, they were forced to use the same toilets reserved for the general population. Given that men can, and do, pee on walls, legislators who tend to be overwhelmingly male, don’t consider potty parity to be a prevalent topic. According to Molotch, the lack of action can be attributed to the fact that potty parity is both a women’s issue and one that is greatly stigmatised. “It’s what you would call a double whammy of prejudice,” he says.

Despite that, there has been progress. Banzhaf notes that over the last few decades, things have improved in the US. Now, 20 out of 50 states have potty parity legislation. However, that too comes with its drawbacks. For one, the legislation only applies to new buildings which means that existing establishments like courthouses and factories have to either break down men’s toilets and replace them with facilities for women, or disincentives women from accessing those spaces.

The former comes at a great cost which would have to be borne by the establishment. According to Molotch, there are “built in efficiencies” when it comes to existing buildings as it is difficult to repurpose hardware to convert men’s facilities into those suited for women. Anthony further argues that toilet parity is “really a controversy over economic resources.” She writes that “in the employment context, the concern is over who will bear the cost of incorporating women in the workforce” and outside the workplace, “the concern is who will bear how much cost in the public arena.”

In terms of the latter, there are historical incidents in which women have been unfairly targeted in order to meet toilet standards enshrined by law. Anthony references one such incident in her paper. In it, a Texas based company operated a factory with only one toilet for 80 workers, 95 per cent of whom were female. Instead of constructing more toilets in line with official regulations, the company fired twenty female workers. Thus, the laws, while being a step in the right direction, can be difficult to implement and/or come with trade-offs for both men and women.

What can be done

As stated previously, there are laws in the US which require new buildings to have two bathrooms for women for every one bathroom for men. In venues that accommodate large crowds, certain states have even mandated a 3:1 ratio. However, Banzhaf argues that while that legislation is useful to an extent, it doesn’t address the needs of existing structures. Pointing to changes made by his own University, he details three strategies that could be implemented instead to enable equal waiting times.

The first involves making men’s toilets unisex, so that women can either use a designated women’s restroom (where they may feel safer) or choose to share facilities with men. According to Banzhaf, most of his female students don’t have a problem with sharing a space with the opposite gender, however, he does acknowledge that the same may not be the case with other demographics, particularly the elderly.

The second option is to have unisex, single seater toilets like the ones you find on airplanes. This would eliminate the need for men and women to share a common space at the same time, but like the prospect of building more toilets, would be costly and take up a lot of acreage. Toilet design would have to be prioritised by architects and engineers in order for this to be feasible on a large scale and unfortunately, as Molotch notes, the people responsible for designing and maintaining these spaces often consider toilets only as an afterthought.

The third initiative involves constructing flexible bathrooms in places like concert halls or sporting arenas. Banzhaf states that there is evidence that different events attract different genders. For example, a stadium hosting a football match might see a lot of male fans on that day. If they were to host a gymnastics event the next day, they would then be more likely to witness an influx of women. Building toilets that are flexible would allow stadiums to convert them for men’s and women’s use respectively, on days where there is high demand for one or the other.

The quality of restrooms is also important, and Anthony argues that much more can be done with female restrooms in order to make them safer, more accessible, and better suited to women’s needs. She suggests employing more bathroom attendants so that women feel safer and also makes a case for female urinals so that more women can be accommodated at any single point of time. According to Anthony, menstrual products should be available in women’s restrooms so that women aren’t forced to run back home or risk soiling their pants in the event that they are unprepared for the onset of their period. Period tracking apps like Oky can also enable women to be better prepared in situations where restrooms don’t sell sanitary products. The menstrual cup, she adds, is another solution as it eliminates the need to dispose of pads or tampons and lasts almost twice as long as a standard large tampon thus reducing the need to change it frequently.

However, in countries like India where there is a stigma against unisex toilets and where menstrual products are not easily available, more creative solutions need to be found. Molotch suggests that India can reimagine entrances to bathrooms so that they are both visible from a distance and yet private enough to ensure safety and discretion. He says that in societies where caste differences are prominent, separate entrances can also be designed for different functions. For this, he provides the analogy of hotels. “When you enter the hotel as a guest, you have this large lavish door welcoming you whereas staff usually enter from a separate, more discreet door,” he says. If toilets were designed like hotels, people from different backgrounds can enter separately but ultimately share the same space.

India has made significant strides in improving sanitation measures. The Swachh Bharat campaign is actively promoting the construction of more toilets and better maintenance standards for existing ones. According to the Swachh Bharat website, the program has resulted in the construction of over 106 million toilets taking India’s rural sanitation coverage up from 39% seven years ago to 100% now. According to a study by the World Health Organization, the Swachh Bharat Mission in rural India was expected to prevent over 300,000 deaths from diarrhoea and malnutrition between 2014 and 2019. Coming at a cost of $14 billion, this campaign has produced tremendous results although the official statistics ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Despite this progress, there is still a lot to be done. Outside of commercial establishments there are still far too few public toilets and given that restaurants and bars only allow customers use of their facilities, many poor people still face barriers to entry. In cities, public toilets for women are often overcrowded and lack basic hygiene standards. Having two toilets for women for every one toilet for men would help mitigate the problem. However, given that stalls take up more space than urinals and women take longer to pee, doubling the number of bathrooms alone may be insufficient.

Inadequate accommodations reflect society’s bias against women in the workplace and public spaces and reinforce the notion that women belong at home. Potty parity is an issue that people rarely discuss, and many feel uncomfortable with. However, unequal access represents a form of discrimination and should be addressed meaningfully at every level. Hopefully a combination of policy and investment will mean that by the time Navrekar’s daughter has children of her own, she won’t have to worry about their health and safety every time nature calls.

Written by Mira Patel

Source: Indian Express, 9/11/21

The saviour complex of Facebook’s critics

 

Bhaskar Chakravorti writes: Whistleblowers and the Western media have exposed how the social media platform allows dangerous social media manipulation in developing countries. But why have they locked those very countries out of this conversation?

Back in February 2019, a Facebook (yes, that is what it used to be called then) employee ran a test to understand what a new user in India would see if all they did was follow pages and groups recommended by Facebook’s algorithms. What the test revealed was horrifying: “A near constant barrage of polarising nationalist content, misinformation, and violence and gore,” according to the tester. This included Islamophobia, a man holding a severed head wrapped in a Pakistani flag, unverified images of Indian retaliatory strikes in Pakistan and battered bodies. India joins Brazil and the US in an exclusive club, “Tier zero,” for hate speech and disinformation on Facebook. The company had set up pre-election “war rooms” and dashboards to alert officials to emerging problems. Yet, despite this elite status, India has been left out in the cold not just by Facebook but by its critics as well.

Thanks to the revelations tumbling out with the Facebook Papers, we now learn that despite the elevated risk status of countries such as India and Brazil or Indonesia and Iran that bagged spots in the next tier of priority for monitoring, 87 per cent of Facebook’s global budget was dedicated to identifying misinformation solely in the US, leaving a measly 13 per cent for all others. Notably, 52.5 per cent of Facebook’s revenues from the first quarter of 2021 came from outside the US and Canada. To make things worse, thanks to the lack of Hindi and Bengali classifiers, much of the problematic content out of India never got flagged. This is a head-scratcher, as much of Facebook’s content moderation is outsourced to —drumroll, please — cheap labour from India.

Now, none of this is looking at all cool for Facebook. And, justifiably, there’s been an outpouring of outrage. We should be thankful to Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee and now whistleblower, who made this trove available, after copying hundreds and thousands of pages of internal documents and communications while she was with the company. Haugen says she was moved to act because she was troubled by the impact of Facebook on the developing world. “I did what I thought was necessary to save the lives of people, especially in the global south, who I think are being endangered by Facebook’s prioritisation of profits over people,” she said.

But here is what’s puzzling. The sharing of Haugen’s hoard was tightly orchestrated. First, The Wall Street Journal got to take a bite and then 18 news organisations were allowed in to feed at the trough. How many media organisations that publish in Hindi or Bengali or Amharic or any of these other developing world languages — or, for goodness sake, any journalists from anywhere in the global south or publications, such as, um, The Indian Express — were part of this exclusive Facebook Papers consortium? Exactly zero.

Are Fox Business and Le Monde better situated to understand the plight of the Muslims in India or of those caught in the war between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front? It is lovely to note that The Wall Street Journal cares enough to cover issues that go beyond those uppermost on American minds and covers stories affecting people in distant lands. Facebook has been – rightly — castigated for not investing enough on content moderators who understand the numerous developing world languages and dialects to catch problematic posts. I would like to know how many Amharic and Oromo speakers do The Wall Street Journal or Le Monde have on their staff that give them the privilege of representing the depths of this scandal to the rest of us?

The cluelessness piles on as we dive deeper into how the media covered its own coverage of the Haugen hoard. Marina Walker Guevara, executive editor of the highly respected Pulitzer Center, said that the present era’s stories – the Facebook saga being a prime example – have become “so complex and so multilayered and global” that it would be impossible to report them without a large, global network. So, let me make sure I have got this right: 18 news organisations from the West, with only two non-English speaking, one from France and the other from Germany, constitute a “large global network?” Really?

This “large global network” devoted more space to covering how this was a breakthrough for Western journalism (their Slack group was called “Apparently We’re a Consortium Now”), congratulating itself (The Washington Post senior managing editor Cameron Barr called it “exciting”), and pondering the pressures of a consortium of competing news organisations on the verge of breaking the embargo.

Wouldn’t the hard-working journalists who work for and spend time on the ground in the global south have some insight into the local “dangers” and provide context and analysis in ways that might add to our understanding of this complicated phenomenon? Did Frances Haugen, her PR team, the consortium of media elite not wonder about the audacity of covering the wretchedness of social media manipulation in the global south while locking the global south out of the room? Are we now re-inventing the white (wo)man’s burden for the digital age?

It is hard to escape the sad lessons of this story. Not only does Facebook not care enough to allocate even the basic modicum of resources to ensure safety in the developing world, but even those who take on the task of bringing Facebook to task — US lawmakers and regulators, the whistleblowers, and the media with privileged access — don’t seem to care much for them either or at least trust them enough to include them.

Facebook had already proven itself to be a post-colonial colonial power. At least the officers and foot soldiers of the East India Company braved malaria and dysentery and spent time in the conquered lands and even made attempts to butcher Hindi or Bengali or all the other conquered languages to converse with the natives. Mark Zuckerberg and his crew have been quarantined in Silicon Valley from the very start and have created or acquired addictive social media products that captured the attention of billions in the global south from a safe distance. They spent precious little in time or resources to truly understand the complexities and local contexts they were in the process of altering with their products. But we knew all this already. What is new with the latest turn of this sad saga is that Facebook’s critics seem just as clueless with their own post-colonial colonial saviour mindsets.

In looking for the right word to describe this, I would use one very different from the obvious one that springs to mind: Irony. Having post-colonial colonials try to take on the gigantic post-colonial colonialist to task for its colonialism is just so, um, “meta”.

Mark Zuckerberg had it right all along. We are already in the metaverse.

Source: Indian Express, 10/11/21