Is there such a thing as a Free Lunch?

The second episode from Dr. Aleks Krotoski's "Virtual Revolution" series, titled "Cost of free" works like an eye-opener for many who think that everything that's on the internet, and for free is done by people with an overabundance of milk of human kindness. But truth couldn't be further from it. Through the episode, one realises that the world wide web is in fact dominated by a few big names. The information that's circulated, which is seemingly limitless, is controlled by those who wield power—by offering things for free. This is not to say that these brands seem like conniving business houses that are exploiting our naivete. But it's important to be cognisant of the dangers of relying on things for free. 


Milton Friedman's book "There's no thing as a free lunch" offers insight into issues that we tend to gloss over in every day life, and the fact that governments can seldom offer anything for free. Taking a cue from these theories, it's plainly obvious that every single choice we make has a consequence—an idea that many economists have suggested. But, do we ever pause to weigh these consequences? I'd hazard a guess and say no. We don't because often aside from being ignorant about the implications of our choices, we're too preoccupied with the "instant gratification" that we have come to relish, thanks to the internet.

Dr. Krotoski's documentary is one such piece of work that joins the dots with regards to the internet and its apparent "freeness". It offers different perspectives to the idea of "free internet", and perhaps what it really means. From the documentary, we come to see that this invention that governs our life (the documentary does in fact conjure up a 1984-esque Orwellian image) is oddly handy, forever evolving to pander to our  fancies, and diligently works to make us more reliant on it.  


Though the documentary doesn't present such a dour, and dark picture entirely. It ends on a positive note, taking cues from the nature of the beast. The beast, in question being the internet, does have a way of trumping over those who can shout the loudest by virtue of their might. The downfall of the music industry brought about by Napster is one such example. One is tempted to believe that perhaps somewhere on the horizon there's another revolution underway that will once again overturn this new order that the internet has ushered in. 


At this point, it's important to understand the implications for PR practitioners. In most countries with fairly evolved PR industries, social media is touted as the next big thing after the invention of the printing press. In part because there's so much access to the audience, and in part because it can't  be controlled—which makes it a double-edged sword. But this Eutopian view of social media is  perhaps slightly naive. Especially, when we consider the role of PR practitioners in not just selling soap or soup, but for other applications such as political communications, governmental communications, etc. Can we really rely on a service that's relies on people's naivete and eagerness to engage to transmit our messages properly? The economics and models of operation that are used by internet platforms such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LastFM, etc. are dependent on people giving out information, which is then commoditised and sold to marketeers. And if our messages are discordant or different to the ones that are being paid for—or indeed even criticise those paid messages—will we still have a voice? This debate of voice gets even more complex when we introduce Moloney's concept of pluralist societies and PR's role in them. If we're the ones persuading people, and our messages are not the ones that are being paid for, will we still be able to do our jobs?