Facebook is misleading Indians with its full-page ads about Free Basics

Post by throwawaykf05 » Fri, Dec 25, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

firasd wrote: post #24

barney54 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there no turning back? Why not let people choose for themselves instead of limiting choices you don't think are good for them?

So you’re fine with the idea that every time you load news​.ycombi​na​tor​.com your ISP charges you $0.10 extra, but if you load TMZ​.com it’s free? That would not be “the internet” in my books, and I’m glad that across the world, from Obama & the FCC to India, people are standing steadfast to endorse net neutrality. As for why there’s no turning back: for most of the internet’s history we’ve had ‘de facto’ net neutr…

Post by LoSboccacc » Fri, Dec 25, 2015, 7:52 PM UTC

Manishearth wrote: post #33

sremani wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us not judge from Intellectual Ivory towers, the facts on the ground are 80% of Indians do not have internet access. You sometimes have to try "impure" methods. The question is still up in the air, whether FB Basics is gateway to full internet or if it is a walled garden. Either way, it is better than No Access. The immediate retort I get is, why not facebook provide free internet access to poor. Guys, is it thei…

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/aircel-to-... There are better ways of giving out Internet for free. By giving out slower internet. Or internet with a free data cap. Or a way of "earning" Internet data after watching some ads (see: Grameenphone in Bangladesh). I'd somewhat agree with the "Some Internet is better than No internet" argument, except that there are better ways of doing the "some Interne…

Post by zem » Fri, Dec 25, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #51

firasd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re fine with the idea that every time you load news​.ycombi​na​tor​.com your ISP charges you $0.10 extra, but if you load TMZ​.com it’s free? That would not be “the internet” in my books, and I’m glad that across the world, from Obama & the FCC to India, people are standing steadfast to endorse net neutrality. As for why there’s no turning back: for most of the internet’s history we’ve had ‘de facto’ net neutr…

As with Bittorrent, the solution may simply be VPNs.

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Dec 25, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

gpvos wrote: post #35

firasd wrote: post #8

I don’t have much to add after the last couple threads on this (my concerns boil down to the importance of net neutrality, and the obscuring way free Facebook plus a few dozen apps is presented as philanthropy) but it’s interesting that after 36 countries, as they say, “embraced” internet​.org, India may finally be where Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitions run aground. We have a specific mix of an established tech ecosystem,…

>a Western corporation trying to aggressively meddle in India has an unhappy precedent. Are you referring to the East India Company as the linked article does? Please be clear, I am not familiar enough with Indian history, and I've seen no-one else bring it up on this page.

Post by icebraining » Fri, Dec 25, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #29

sremani wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if I came across condescending, I was try to set contrast here. For the activists its an intellectual/idealogical crusade, and for the poor people it is a way of life thing. On other note, there are desperate patients and families who are willing to risk their health and are trying hard to get access to drugs that are in clinical trails even in OECD countries.

And the equivalent Facebook solution to the drug problem would be "Hey, we don't need to do clinical trials, because some medicine is better than no medicine, since there are desperate people who are willing to accept anything right now".