71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy? If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products , but only Coca Cola trucks could use the roads - FTFY Now that doesnt look so good, does it?
Internet.org isn't for only Facebook, right? So, the question is are you an idiot or a troll?
Please don't.
This video has given me a newfound respect for Facebook. Many engineers at tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. report that they feel overqualified for their work. I imagine many yearn for the chance to work on moonshot projects like these - is there any reason why secretive research divisions at these companies are so small, when there is plenty of engineering talent to go around internally?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming a lessened desire, why? There are no perfect options, only trade offs. FB can provide a service, and if people don't use it, fine. But, let them decide.
Ya, there's nothing wrong with them providing this service. They just shouldn't be heralded as providing some great charity, I think that's all people are saying. If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy? If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products , but only Coca Cola trucks could use the roads - FTFY Now that doesnt look so good, does it?
No, that still looks pretty good, because some people want to buy Coca Cola.
Should the bread company have to build their own roads, too? That's a better world, how exactly?
And what about the people who don't want to buy Coca Cola? Should they get to buy nothing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wikipedia is a supoorted website. thats really cool
> supported website Think about how terrible that is.
In theory, absolutely.
In practice, too much of the useful web is concentrated in a small number of fiefdoms. And that is ultimately our fault, not theirs.
This is not an effort to provide the full internet. See this critique by the EFF for more details: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutra...
According to the project lead: "Maguire told Quartz that the company intends to provide “the full internet,” but also noted that it will work with network operators’ bandwidth needs and business models." http://qz.com/468376/facebooks-internet-beaming-drone-is-rea...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya, there's nothing wrong with them providing this service. They just shouldn't be heralded as providing some great charity, I think that's all people are saying. If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
Facebook is a business, yes. Does that mean they do not positively impact the world? Absolutely not. IIRC they are providing FB and Wikipedia (among other resources), those two resources alone will allow people the access to the entirety of human knowledge, and the ability to connect to anyone in the world. Via there phone. That is _huge_. Yes, it isn't perfect, and yes FB is investing for advertising in ~5-10+ years…
This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books!
The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's not the "full internet" then it's not the internet. They shouldn't dress this up like a charitable project.
Some internet > no internet
Just having some applications is not the same as being online, it's just a way for those companies to short-circuit the wait before they can add those users to their 'inventory'.
As a result the incentive to roll out the remainder is for a large part removed. This is the corporate wet-dream for the net: just a couple of big data silos. And where better to trial this idea and lock in the users as much as possible.
Planes that fly for 3 months at a time on sunlight, bringing the Internet to people isn't cool?