151–160 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png "Some connectivity is better than no connectivity, hence the violation of NN is justified" Does he really not see the enormous liability that a precedent like this can create?
The precedent already exists, at least here in Australia. Luckily it hasn't caused too many problems thus far, but whether that is merely an outlier remains to be seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia run by the non-profit Wikimedia foundation, Facebook is an ad-serving, for-profit social network. So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.
> Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program Except for the high likelihood of having a pop over of Jimmy Wales asking for money show up on all your content.
Internet.org is offering a free service to people who would otherwise have no access to the Internet. Net neutrality on a free service in a developing country is an entirely different issue than net neutrality in developed countries with high Internet access rates. I see similarities between this and GMO in developing countries, where rich, well fed people in developed countries oppose gmo in countries that can't fee…
As for opposing GMOs -- one needs to consider why certain countries "can't feed themselves", and if maybe food cartels might have something to do with it.
For the record, I'm deeply sceptical to GMOs for two reasons: 1) I don't think allowing patent on life/genes to be a good idea -- and find the idea that you're not allowed to plant crops you buy (eg: not being legally allowed to plant a potato, because you didn't buy it "with intent to plant", but paid the "lower" price for "intent to consume") -- or not being able to because of second generation being sterile -- 2) I worry about the pesticides, the interplay between evolution (super bugs), monoculture etc.
[ed: To add: I think the choice between starve like now, and be forever beholden to foreign corporations and their patents is a false choice. Similarly, I think no Internet like now, and be beholden to Facebook is a false choice too.
Setting up local (eg: village-size) mesh-nets, allowing intranets to form, and then slowly connecting those to the bigger Internet, should be entirely viable. Allow for free text (xmpp), voice (sip etc) as well as browsing (maybe initially favouring usenet groups, as that is resilient and works well on low bandwidth links) -- and allow it to grow organically. No need to try and bootstrap straight to the first-world, balkanized Internet of lobotomized, centralized, content-silo-oriented services...]
Can someone give me a good argument as to why no internet is better than free limited internet with facebook + google search + wikipedia? If Facebook will provide free limited internet (and as always, you can pay regularly to get full internet access) for a lot of basic service, it only seems reasonable they will package their facebook and messenger apps as well. On the whole, do you think internet.org is a bad, nega…
Because it's the opposite of net neutrality. It's picking winners and losers. If Facebook is free, but you have to pay for local home grown Indian social networking sites, well then how will those businesses ever compete? Personally, I'm torn. I'm all for free access to Wikipedia. The problem is, not all of the world's knowledge exists there, so you therefor are only giving people a taste of knowledge. With Facebook…
I could see pages used as public group walls, profile pages as personal walls, "discuss"-pages as discussion. Only thing missing is "private" chat/pages -- but a browser-plugin with support for OTR/GPG (encrypt to many recipients...) could fix that, and be way more secure/private than Facebook...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If internet.org was really about providing internet access to people who otherwise can't access it, what is stopping Facebook from making it open? In current form lets say internet.org allows access to 100+ websites. I assume speed will be slow anyways. So make it open. Speed and data cap will be a deterrent for people wanting to abuse the platform (and things like torrent etc can be blocked anyways) But I guess that…
I believe the price is stopping it. Getting a telco to give you massively reduced rates on a few domains is drastically different than paying for internet access for everybody. Also, please correct me if I am mistaken, but I.org doesn't prevent you actually paying for full internet access?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better no internet than facebook? Sounds cynic.
Better just internet. It's like McDonald's building "free" roads that you can use to reach McDonald's, but if you want to go anywhere else you have to pay tolls. It is unbelievably self-serving and for Zuckerburg to dissemble on that point is wildly disingenuous. "Well, at least they can reach McDonald's" is not a good argument against just building roads and letting people drive wherever.
Personally, I wish there was a better scheme to allocate precious wireless spectrum other than giving a 100 year license to the highest bidder in an auction. (Whether the auction is rigged or not is besides the point.)
We talk about common carrier when it comes to wireline communication but why can't we do the same for wireless?
I don't know about others but it sickens me to think that we consider it an achievement to raise a couple of billion dollars for granting exclusive license to prime low frequency spectrum to Cingular/Verizon. Wouldn't it be better if wireless carriers didn't have to fight over who has the least bad coverage? There has to be a better way...
After limited protest/outrage in communities like /r/india, the news finally hit big when a comedy group AIB decided to make a video explaining what Net Neutrality is: https://youtu.be/mfY1NKrzqi0 and then it finally hit mainstream media. Amid pressure from everywhere, Flipkart finally withdrew from the Airtel Zero deal which would have been a blow to Net Neutrality in India. Of course, next step was Internet.org and…
That is not a literal quote. Here is the actual quote from that image -
"For people who are not on the internet though, having some connectivity and some ability to share is always much better than no ability to connect and share at all. That's why programs like Internet.org are important and can co-exist with net neutrality regulations."
After limited protest/outrage in communities like /r/india, the news finally hit big when a comedy group AIB decided to make a video explaining what Net Neutrality is: https://youtu.be/mfY1NKrzqi0 and then it finally hit mainstream media. Amid pressure from everywhere, Flipkart finally withdrew from the Airtel Zero deal which would have been a blow to Net Neutrality in India. Of course, next step was Internet.org and…
> Btw, this was Zuckerburg's response when posed this question: https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png "Some connectivity is better than no connectivity, hence the violation of NN is justified" That is not a literal quote. Here is the actual quote from that image - "For people who are not on the internet though, having some connectivity and some ability to share is always much better than no ability to connect and share at…
After limited protest/outrage in communities like /r/india, the news finally hit big when a comedy group AIB decided to make a video explaining what Net Neutrality is: https://youtu.be/mfY1NKrzqi0 and then it finally hit mainstream media. Amid pressure from everywhere, Flipkart finally withdrew from the Airtel Zero deal which would have been a blow to Net Neutrality in India. Of course, next step was Internet.org and…
Internet.org is offering a free service to people who would otherwise have no access to the Internet. Net neutrality on a free service in a developing country is an entirely different issue than net neutrality in developed countries with high Internet access rates. I see similarities between this and GMO in developing countries, where rich, well fed people in developed countries oppose gmo in countries that can't fee…
GMOs are not giving a curated list of seeds away for free to make the farmers dependent on them.
GMOs sell their product like every body else in the free market.
