11–20 of 237 posts
Indian telcos, Indian consumers and Indian public pay for FreeBasics. Fair of them to decide whether they want this scheme or not.
Man wrote words on Twitter. This is news now.
Extremely stupid tweet by Andreessen. He probably doesn't even realize that, like most ignorant people. FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s. And it was colonialism that drained the country's wealth for over two hundred years. Here, Mr. Andreessen, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=bengal+famine
Yes, probably a really stupid thing to say, and perhaps wrong for many reasons.
No, he did not say India should have kept Britain as its colonial power, or any of the other incredible interpretations now flying around the Twittersphere.
Jonny Axelsson: Anti-semitism not the opposite of semitism. Now whether anti-colonialism is a thing is another thing. Americans, esp. right-wing, have Humpty Dumpty appoach to redefining words but in context is clear: @pmarca referred to the post-colonial anti-colonial mix of nationalism, socialism, abuse/power that afflicted many ex-colonies
Marc Andreessen: Exactly.
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697281882401026048
[Please disagree with Andreessen's point, not with my point that he really didn't say take India back to British colonialism but said something else that perhaps is almost as stupid.]
..because I think the message in its context is only that using the anti-colonialism gesture is not a useful policy trick to counter facebooks free basics initiative for Indians.
On the other hand it's twitter. And they have to be outraged about something.
Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this. On top of that he was condescending towards India by bringing up "poor" and "morality" when instead he should have commended India for not falling for the trap. He is entitled to his opinions about colonialism. People that care about it will respond.
He's a pretty big investor in Facebook. That's why he's willing to ignore the net neutrality implications - because it benefits him.