51–60 of 91 posts
Is there somewhere to complain about the domain name being an .org as this seems to be the opposite of the internet. Why don't they just give people 200Mb of free data if they really want to promote the internet. A better site name might be corpnet.com lockinnet.com.
They're giving people something for free. It's hard to complain about that.
I guess it's official, Facebook isn't going anywhere and will continue to become more and more part of our lives. They're getting close to the level of Google (which I do trust with my data because they are transparent about most issues before people start asking them to be). http://newsroom.fb.com/pages-directory/ http://newsroom.fb.com/resources-projects/ We can avoid Facebook all we want but one of these days ther…
How can you trust facebook? How a non net-neutral Internet is good for Zambia? It's just clever marketing from facebook. Nothing else. Creating news costumers forced to use faceboook to keep his numbers high and growing. Its shady privacy policy and unethical experiments (and don't forget the NSA collaboration) makes of Facebook one of the worst corporations out there. I invite you to close your account.
When you are are getting something for free, someone else is spending money for you and clearly getting something for free is better that getting nothing.
In case of Comcast etc. this is not the case because these service providers use public land and create monopolies with the help of government.
Obviously it's again net neutrality, and there are probably a lot of better ways to give access to Internet to people who don't have it. On the other end, I'd like to think it can be really useful to some people.
I regret however that the conditions and the process to be integrated to the app are not clearly stated.
For instance, it should be required that a service is accessible without restriction of any kind, and be interoperable... and Facebook Messenger doesn't meet these requirements.
The internet.org website is down: http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/internet.org.html 500 Internal Server Error -- http://www.internet.org
Site is working here without a problem.
It works fine now.
I don't understand why is everyone here crying how evil this is. They are going to provide FREE Internet access to the basic websites and how that is a bad thing?
They're effectively just pretending to be the 'good guys', in order to destroy net neutrality before it gets a chance.
The pessimist in me wonders if this is simply a brilliant strategy by Facebook to acquire the 4.5 billion people who aren't currently connected without having to compete with others. What's different between this and getting rid of net neutrality aside from side stepping the government entirely and doing it under the premise of helping the world become a better place?
The realist in me guesses that they probably see both sides and consider it a win/win scenario. I mean, wouldn't you?
Wait. I don't understand. Why not just give people http?
They would get the wrong idea. Access to information should not be free, the internet as it happened to develop was a mistake. We must make sure we don't let the third-world make the same.
(If you are about to downvote parent because he is wrong, read up on sarcasm and count to ten. If you happen to think it was more irrelavant or more out-of-place than most stuff here I can certainly see that, go ahead and downvote : )
PS: This comment really shouldn't be necessary but I have seen examples lately of people failing to not only appreciate well-placed sarcasm but also recognize it, as seen by the fact that they will start arguing how the parent comment is wrong. Sarcasm, well used, is^h^h used to be a very powerful technique because of the way it can expose the stupidity of something.