Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#71

Post by x5n1 »

mwsherman wrote: post #38

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that posi…

It's fine to go around saying we're offering free facebook to users who want it. That's the big mistake that Zuckerborg made. It should be free facebook.

Do you want free facebook? Many people would say yes.

"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it. "

The fb site makes it "free access to basic internet" which it is not. It's free access to facebook. Just say that, and maybe you won't get all the push back.

It's not the critics who made this distinction or picked this fight. It's Zuckerborg.

If you really want to offer free basic internet, then do that. I am sure fb could if it wanted to offer a limited amount of bandwidth to any user who wants it for free to do with as they choose. Then they might actually be doing something positive for the poor of India, rather than trying to corral them into fb in the name of free basic internet.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#72

Post by kuschku »

mwsherman wrote: post #38

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that posi…

Okay, let’s give the users of Facebook predecessors of Free Basic a voice.

Here am I, a German who used to use Facebook Zero (free access to Facebook via 3G) while I was in middle (and later high) school.

As soon as it became available, I – and some of my friends – stopped using SchuelerVZ, the social network most people used to use at the time – and instead actually tried to convince others to switch to Facebook, too.

"It’s free! You don’t need to pay anything!"

We tried to get as much content as possible inside the network, and never actually left it – because we had literally no money on our prepaid SIMs, and therefore couldn’t access other pages. Everything that wasn’t on Facebook didn’t exist for us.

In only a few months after Facebook Zero launched, the user numbers of SchuelerVZ and StudiVZ rapidly declined.

Today, we don’t have a choice for social networks anymore, Facebook has a monopoly.

    ----------------
Facebook Zero: http://0.facebook.com/

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#73

Post by drumdance »

yggydrasily wrote: post #17
devindotcom wrote: post #15

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector,…

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either…

Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#74

Post by asift »

zanny wrote: post #53
mwsherman wrote: post #38

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that posi…

How is a poor Indian citizen supposed to make a judgment on if having a locked down Internet where they can only use Facebook is better than this Internet they might not have even heard of with millions of websites? They only see one side of this argument if any at all. From their perspective they do not know alternatives even exist .

It's not that they don't see other alternatives. This is true, but the reality is that other realistic alternatives don't even exist.

Their realistic option set is: (a) free access to an incredibly valuable set of resources, or (b) nothing.

I would take (a) over (b) any day. I would hope that broader alternatives would eventually come along (and history tells us it will), but the crowd that wants the Indian poor to have nothing until that day comes is, in my opinion, despicable. Heck, I might not even mind some gated internet in the US if I was free to opt-in/out of it and it reduced my internet costs.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#75

Post by tptacek »

thieving_magpie wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.

One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.

It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait.

People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else.

In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#76

Post by everly »

circuitslave wrote: post #44
yggydrasily wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either…

It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.

I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#77

Post by MawNicker »

zanny wrote: post #55
icebraining wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe. And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from competing with it. After all, if the problem is that private compa…

It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled renting of those lines. But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at all. Nobody would…

The market has already converged on essentially this reality. We have cable and fiber monopolies controlling the local networks. These used to be more open when DSL was the prevalent technology. This allowed a variety of ISPs to utilize that shared infrastructure. The telcos didn't care about the Internet before. Once there was apparently money to be made they changed their game. They developed faster connections on closed infrastructure and displaced the smaller players. The only way to compete is with new infrastructure. The incumbent monopoly has a massive advantage overcoming this barrier to entry. They have, and need only maintain, dominance. It takes a massive initiative (like Google Fiber) to provide a threat and revive genuine competition. The "free market" isn't optimal here. Google is taking one for the team. We can't always count on this sort of thing. Without public ownership and regulation of monopolies there's no "free" market. There is of course but the entirety of the market is the only object for sale. Once privatized it becomes anything but free. Government ownership mitigates this problem by allowing the public to assert further market freedom via regulation. Like net neutrality. As we are beginning to see, without owning the infrastructure, we can't make this regulation stick.

When a monopoly is the optimal solution, it ought to be the government. If it isn't then it will be a private company. The former can be shaped by public vote in order to enforce an optimal solution. That is: solve the problems that require a monopoly and give the rest back to the free market. The latter has impunity and seeks to monetize it. That is: to control access to the market.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#78

Post by hellameta »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #70
lunula wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently we shouldn't mention this here because he said it when he was young and likely to say reprehensible things. But, has he ever apologized? I am discontent to watch the world lay power at his feet, and proud of Indians for standing up to him.

More important than an apology would be a statement that it is no longer true (if that is, in fact, the case). Anyone have a link to such a statement?

Although it may give some positive press - the reality is that he was a young adult when he said it and he simply can't take it back. We don't need to pretend he's some kind of saint. This fake modesty is seriously nonsense. Zuck is a competitor and a winner and does what is necessary. That's it.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#79

Post by samstave »

drumdance wrote: post #73
yggydrasily wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either…

Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.

Walmart was in the same class

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#80

Post by myth_buster »

The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this quote to mind...

  When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that 
  name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, 
  Planet Starbucks.
In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.
Post reply on HN