&gt;<i>All I am saying is that there is no need of creating the same piece of software by a different team of people just because of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). India should spend time in creating other things.</i><p>It&#x27;s not just NIH. If you&#x27;re in the small leagues you get to use whatever other players offer, but if you&#x27;re one of the superpowers, like China is and India wants to be, it makes sense to have your own infrastructure that you control.<p>&gt;<i>China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn&#x27;t offer them.</i><p>Not just that. First, there&#x27;s surveillance of its citizens. China might be OK with doing it to their own citizens, and the US might be OK with them doing it to their own. But neither the US nor China would be OK with the other doing it to their citizens. Now, a second rate player, like Spain or even Germany (who even was under US governance for a long time after WWII) might be OK with it, and an aggregate big player like the EU might not yet have the power of coordination and political might to fight this situation.<p>Second, most of the western internet (from news outlets to social media) mostly features and touts the western internets and viewpoints on any matter, from cultural issues to trade agreements. I&#x27;m not talking of Chinese government propaganda here either (that of course also exists). I&#x27;m talking about all kinds of issues, where there are different national interests at stake. Now, this situation is convenient for the US population, who follows its own websites, never watches e.g. Brazilian or French movies or listens to e.g. Spanish or Chinese pop, and sure as hell never reads foreign newspapers or uses foreign social media platforms anyway (&quot;never&quot; here used as a proxy for &quot;in insignificant amounts&quot;), as all of their media&#x2F;websites put the culture and interests of the US (or of some US based companies) first.<p>Of course people sharing those interests and culture (e.g. US citizens, British etc), these media&#x2F;services might even appear &quot;totally neutral&quot; -- as if they&#x27;re just describing out objective reality. Or they&#x27;ll point to things like FOX vs X progressive channel, to show how there&#x27;s variety of opinion as if that covers the whole spectrum.<p>People outside the US reading those outlets and using those services though (because of them being early technological pioneers, having the infrastructure and the money, etc) do have this problem -- that the majority of stuff there is more often than not against their national interests&#x2F;culture&#x2F;sensitivities&#x2F;political views&#x2F;etc.<p>&gt;<i>Indian Facebook doesn&#x27;t make sense.</i><p>A US based web service having access to all the private data for the Indian population makes even less sense. Would Americans feel the same way if Facebook was, say, Russian? Conveniently they seldom, if ever, have to use a non US-based web service of such scope. It&#x27;s always the others who have to use theirs.