51–60 of 237 posts
That's a rather Orwellian choice of words, and appears to be flying under the radar while everybody gets upset at the other stuff.
Let's call it what it really is: connectivity to a couple of services which also happen to be connected to the Internet. "Partial Internet connectivity" is about on the same level as "partial pregnancy."
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
To be fair, it was stupid, however it was also a tongue in cheek tweet that was not an endorsement of colonialism and more poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule. He was essentially making the point you made.
Ah, that's so much better. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s. Which is exactly what he says he meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072752
If I were him, I'd say I meant that too! The original was catastrophically dumb. Was it because it's what he actually believes, or because he didn't spend more than fifteen microseconds considering his words? Beats me. Fun to watch, though.
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.
There are some wonderful things Twitter does, especially around real time news of non-controversial events such as natural disasters, but if the service is a net positive for the world, it's by the slimmest of margins.
That being said, this whole uproar is just more proof that social media is totally, utterly broken. Let me explain.
While I think Marc is on the board of an evil company and that his thought process on this matter is incredibly ignorant, I really appreciate the fact that he shares his point of view. I don't just appreciate it, I respect it. Maybe he's got a point. Maybe he doesn't. I won't know unless I hear what he's got to say, and then spend some time thinking it through. This is what intelligent, thinking people do. Before they turned into kettle pots of blind activism, this is what people went to college to learn to do. This is what makes living in a free-speech democracy so great -- people say totally crazy shit, some people agree, some people don't, it's all good.
Maybe the education system broke down or something, but people are no longer capable of dealing with viewpoints that differ from their own. They immediately label the person with whom they disagree, shame them (look at all of those screen grabs! Oh my!), and broadcast their displeasure to the world. We live in a world where people are supposedly taught to embrace those with different views -- that you and your best friend and your daughter's husband and your next door neighbor might not actually have the same exact views, but you can still be friends and get along just fine -- but this sort of tempered nuance attracts zero attention in a click-like-share world. Tolerance gains no attention in the world of social media; "disgust," "outrage," and other such intolerant reactions attract a crowd of views.
People should be thanking Marc Andreesen, the Facebook board member, for being so utterly candid about his thought process. Those in disagreement should cite facts to educate him. I'm sure he has his own facts that form his opinions (and surely, he does). Maybe his opinions won't change, and maybe those of the dissenters won't either. You know what, that's okay! That's LIFE. Life isn't about being right, it's about being alive. You can think Marc is a total moron on the India topic and still be his friend. We don't all have to agree on everything. It's WEIRD if we did -- there's nothing real about it. As I like to say, "a friend with whom you've never disagreed is a potential enemy you never knew you had."
Social media justice isn't justice, it's a modern-day mockery of the freedom of thought we fought so hard to attain. This shit is broken, folks. I don't know why Marc bothers with it, but I guess he is one of those people who thinks social media is the future of human discourse. I'm not. And that's okay.
I think this thread might need a refresher on how to disagree [1]. Already a few DH0 offenses. [1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Marc Andreessen is an extraordinarily influential person in tech, and that influence is based on his reputation. If a nobody like me tweeted something dumb, everyone would just ignore me. Nobody ignores Andreessen, though. Maybe it would be better for the world if his Twitter feed and mine were treated similarly, but that's not how the world works, and we have to respond to the world as it is.
Furthermore, part of his continuing influence, 20 years after Netscape, is the continuing impression that he is a clear thinker about issues facing the tech world. (See, elsewhere in this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072721 .) There are two valid discussions at play here. The first is whether Free Basics is a good idea; the second is whether Andreessen is in fact the insightful thinker he appears to be. (The specific subdiscussion about whether rejecting Free Basics is a form of anti-colonialism, incidentally, is only valid if we take it as a given that Andreessen's ideas are worth listening to in the first place.) For the second one, a record of him just not being a good or well-informed thinker is in fact refuting the central point of that argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mughal Empire , sectarianism and caste system crippled India, not Britain.
You should find out what India's share of world GDP and trade was when the british arrived.
Following two incidents are enough to educate what a gift british colonoalism was for India:
1. Firing on Poor people http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/jbagh.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
2. Artificial Famine took Millions of Lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
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
To be fair, it was stupid, however it was also a tongue in cheek tweet that was not an endorsement of colonialism and more poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule. He was essentially making the point you made.
If you understand the affects of colonialism of 200 years - economic and other exploitation - sluggish is pretty much the best case you can expect after freedom. Comparing to other colonies India has done fairly well for having being nearly destroyed and rebuilt.