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

Post by minusSeven » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:02 AM UTC

petke wrote: post #70

erbdex wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a screenshot of what's the permanent top-notification if you're an Indian and on Facebook- http://imgur.com/uykRY8G

I agree Facebook is doing this for their own greedy reasons, but they make one very good point: "Banning free basics on the basis of net neutrality [...] means 1 billion people cant afford to access any services." It isn't a choice between having facebook, or having the full internet. Its a choice between having facebook, or having no internet at all. Surely no internet at all, is the worst option. Nobody else is goi…

Post by SturgeonsLaw » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 10:39 AM UTC

likerofnews wrote: post #194

quadrangle wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Facebook is rich enough and powerful enough to MAKE the choice be full-internet or nothing. They and other powerful entities can provide full internet. It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because they want that to be the choice. FaceBook is not some savior here. The ramifications of pushing everyone to FB are also devastating because they would force everyone to get locked in to using F…

> It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because they want that to be the choice. It's Facebook's fault that many Indians can't afford the Internet? Okay...it's also Facebook's fault that there is poverty in the world. You know, poverty that spontaneously started to exist in 2004, when Facebook was founded.

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 11:20 AM UTC

iofj wrote: post #201

shrikrishna wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get one thing straight. Free Basics is not about "bringing up" the poor. And among the "well off" are those who were poor once and have used knowledge from the internet to be wise enough to realize what is going on. Free Basics, if allowed to remain, will become a gatekeeper to the internet and will essentially become a barrier to entry to other services

Minus: might become a barrier to entry to other services Plus: provides "some" internet for a billion people ... including wikipedia and various info apps. Includes photo sharing, chat, ... Which of these is more important ? That's the big question being discussed here. And of course the people discussing how this might stand in the way of their future profits feel absolutely no need to provide an alternative ...

Post by firasd » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 11:51 AM UTC

shkesar wrote: post #216

> for every new user that comes on the internet, Facebook makes Rs. 8, while Google makes aroumd Rs. 48 Where are these figures from? Who pays facebook for signups? Just looking for an insight into this.

Post by SolaceQuantum » Sat, Dec 26, 2015, 12:01 PM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #180

discardorama wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how your experience where most could not afford any access (let alone restricted access) to basic telephony applies to this scenario where a restricted service is being given for free. You're missing the point completely. My point is: we are on the path to progress. It's going the right way for the future of the people. But Facebook wants to derail it and lock you into their ecosystem. In the long run,…

And my point is, people who are here, posting against FB's initiative, obviously have Internet , which the poor don't even have, let alone Internet freedom. So what they're basically saying is, the poor should not have the same facilities that I am enjoying, because I am worried about them being locked-in and I know better than them what they want.