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

Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

#81

Post by foiboitoi »

icelancer wrote: post #79
nitrogen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no downside to having this additional option available. Sure there's a lot of value in communicating with other Facebook users, but if you can't see the possible downside of having a large group of people's first and only connection being through a corporate-controlled view of the world, you're not using your imagination.

Can you actually make the argument that access to Facebook/Wikipedia/etc is worse than no Internet whatsoever?

Wouldn't it prevent people interested in creating an ISP in any area that has "free" facebooknet? Especially if the services provided by facebooknet is most of which people would want with an ISP anyway?

So not only does it prevent competitor websites, but it stops competitive ISPs, too. It's especially bad if this coporate network is censoring information. No opportunity to even discover non-filtered information outside the info bubble. This triple whammy is the consequence for those involved or not.

Re: Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

#82

Post by hueving »

icelancer wrote: post #79
nitrogen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no downside to having this additional option available. Sure there's a lot of value in communicating with other Facebook users, but if you can't see the possible downside of having a large group of people's first and only connection being through a corporate-controlled view of the world, you're not using your imagination.

Can you actually make the argument that access to Facebook/Wikipedia/etc is worse than no Internet whatsoever?

It would be somewhat contrived, but you could argue that the shown ability of Facebook to influence the moods of a population via filtering content could be used to oppress underprivileged people.

Re: Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

#87

Post by girvo »

foiboitoi wrote: post #81
icelancer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually make the argument that access to Facebook/Wikipedia/etc is worse than no Internet whatsoever?

Wouldn't it prevent people interested in creating an ISP in any area that has "free" facebooknet? Especially if the services provided by facebooknet is most of which people would want with an ISP anyway? So not only does it prevent competitor websites, but it stops competitive ISPs, too. It's especially bad if this coporate network is censoring information. No opportunity to even discover non-filtered information out…

Are those competitive ISPs going to give the audience we're talking about access to the net for free as well? Because for a lot of people in this world, they will never be connected to the net unless they don't have to pay; they simply can't afford it.

Re: Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

#88

Post by andreyf »

icelancer wrote: post #79
nitrogen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no downside to having this additional option available. Sure there's a lot of value in communicating with other Facebook users, but if you can't see the possible downside of having a large group of people's first and only connection being through a corporate-controlled view of the world, you're not using your imagination.

Can you actually make the argument that access to Facebook/Wikipedia/etc is worse than no Internet whatsoever?

Yes, absolutely, and it's not a new idea, e.g. "sending shirts destroys local textile economies by flooding the market with free goods and undercutting local t-shirt producers" [1].

1. http://freakonomics.com/2011/02/15/what-happens-to-all-those...

Re: Tunneling Internet traffic over FB chat

#90

Post by nl »

zanny wrote: post #33
nl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet.org might not be net neutral, but that doesn't make it bad. Much of the world isn't the US, and differently structured markets need to be considered differently.

So if you are in an impoverished area your packets are different from first world packets, magically making it harder to send them to 207.241.224.2 (archive.org) than 173.252.120.6 (facebook.com)? No, that is not the case. Instead, Facebook will pay for you to get Internet if that is Internet that only lets you access Facebook . And that is not an Internet at all. The infrastructure, the physical reality, means that…

I think that internet access to a site like Wikipedia is incredibly valuable to those with no internet access.

If Facebook wants to pay for that, and the cost is that they also get access to Facebook then my view is that is a net good.

Post reply on HN