Slashdot Mirror
India Pushes Back Against Tech 'Colonization' by Internet Giants (nytimes.com)
In India, American companies dominate the internet. Facebook's WhatsApp is the most popular app on phones. Virtually every smartphone runs on Google's Android system. YouTube is the favorite video platform and Amazon is the No. 2 online retailer. For some Indian political leaders, it is as if their nation --which was ruled by Britain for a century until 1947 -- is being conquered by colonial powers all over again. And they are determined to stop it. From a report: "As a country, we have to all grow up and say that, you know, enough of this," Vinit Goenka, a railways official who works on technology policy for India's governing Bharatiya Janata Party, said at a conference last week. In recent months, regulators and ministers across India's government have declared their intention to impose tough new rules on the technology industry. Collectively, the regulations would end the free rein that American tech giants have long enjoyed in this country of 1.3 billion people, which is the world's fastest-growing market for new internet users. The proposals include European-style limits on what big internet companies can do with users' personal data, a requirement that tech firms store certain sensitive data about Indians only within the country, and restrictions on the ability of foreign-owned e-commerce companies to undercut local businesses on price. Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare, commented on the story, saying, "India is currently the most important country in term of defining the future of Internet policy. It sits at the fulcrum between the United States and China. As it goes, so goes the world."
In the 1960's, IBM chose to leave the market in India because of how the government tried to force them to do business.
"Indians use these services, but profits from these services go overseas. And I just happen to have some wealthy local friends who would like a slice of this pie. And, being a politician, I am playing a patriotism card for them, to pave the way for the popular movement to support local product-to-be."
Nothing wrong or even unusual about it though; it's about as ethical (or unethical, depending on one's PoV) as the "eat locally grown food" slogan. In theory, if they are capable of creating an alternative to (at least some subset of) Google services, some new competition is always good for the market and so good for everyone. But what usually happens is they start applying external pressure by putting services in unequal conditions by subsidizing locals or even doing darker things like throttling traffic at state level or limiting their capability to earn revenue through regulatory measures. Eh, I'm not a globalization fan either, so whatever.