11–20 of 57 posts
Good -- some Internet is better than no Internet, and if it takes a mountain of ads to get that to folks, so be it.
No this is not Internet. It is AOL v2. It could well mean that people never get any internet.
You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No this is not Internet. It is AOL v2. It could well mean that people never get any internet.
Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others. You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?
I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org
On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because "were doing you a favour!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others. You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?
The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!" I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because…
I love to demonize big tech as much as the next guy, but I really think the public consensus in India against Internet.org is inherently biased. The catalyst for the movement was a Youtube video. The chosen method of lodging protest was via email. AIB themselves would not be the thought leaders they are today if internet access was restricted to them. Every activist has been, by definition, in a position of privilege…
We are agitating to ensure everyone else gets the full internet, not just Facebook. It's not that hard. The government already collects 5% of all telco revenues for a "universal service obligation fund" and has not spent it. The money sitting in that account alone could give everyone internet access.
I love to demonize big tech as much as the next guy, but I really think the public consensus in India against Internet.org is inherently biased. The catalyst for the movement was a Youtube video. The chosen method of lodging protest was via email. AIB themselves would not be the thought leaders they are today if internet access was restricted to them. Every activist has been, by definition, in a position of privilege…
Sure they would. Does that mean it is good for the ecosystem on the whole? No.
80% of internet.org users are users with existing data plans. How hard do you think it is to get someone switch over from free to paid? Even for a person of privilege, he will prefer a free meal over a paid meal unless there is a huge difference in quality of a free meal (e.g. bread) vs. paid plan (e.g. steak). Considering that only well capitalised companies can provide free meals, you have just made the uphill battle that startups everyday fight against BigCos into a vertical slope.
It doesn't have to be like this. The Delhi Government is going to soon roll out a free neutral Internet covering large parts of the city. There are many models of free Internet implemented all over the world.
We'll get connectivity to the millions, but it won't be on Facebook terms - it'll be on the terms as decided by a democratically elected nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others. You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?
The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!" I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because…
You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with because it doesn't fit your ideology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!" I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because…
So you would literally go to these people and tell them they are going to continue to not have any way of communicating with one another or others throughout the world because what they're being offered isn't the "real" Internet? You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with bec…
If you would just set me and my friends up as dictators,
then we'd build a faux democracy and call it
totalandcompletefreedom.org. Soon, everyone will benefit
from the fake freedom and realize how amazing it is to
be free.Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you would literally go to these people and tell them they are going to continue to not have any way of communicating with one another or others throughout the world because what they're being offered isn't the "real" Internet? You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with bec…
It doesn't have to be an All Or Nothing situation. Nobody has asserted that nobody should ever provide limited internet access to developing countries. It's just that Facebooks attempt have some very serious, and potentially malicious problems, which have been stated in this thread.
I apologize for the account swapping -- HN decided I was commenting too much on my other account, and I wanted to continue our discussion while it was still fresh in both our minds.