91–100 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
Why don't we ask the people who currently have no internet what they'd prefer?
Just, no. This is frightening on many levels. A facebook plane? To get people on facebook, right? To get them on the internet is secondary to Zuckerbergs goals here, lets be honest. A walled garden? Come on. It should be the whole internet or they shouldn't even bother. A walled garden, with no security protocols, with the intention of getting the entire world on facebook? Not cool.
What if it's the other way around? What if the smart and passionate folks at Facebook really do just want to get the internet to the rest of the world, and this is the way they can justify doing so? They are a public company, after all. They have to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, or at least appear to do so...
Actually they could completely ignore their shareholders from this point forward and absolutely nothing would happen to Facebook the company.
They have their IPO money in their pockets and the daily ebb-and-flow of Facebook share-trading provides no benefit to them other than reputation-enhancement should they wish to go to the markets again in the future.
Why are people on HN actually supporting this? Facebook built a plane to beam its horrible timesink to even more people. Facebook is not a good thing. No company "gives things away" out of the good of their heart. They built a PLANE. Honestly, the only word I can describe this with is: scary.
The Internet isn't a good thing either. People make it out as the Internet is the great place for people to connect with each other and this great repository of information. Whilst this is true to an extent, the Internet certainly has the potential to be a cause for good it isn't used that way. The Internet is mostly a political device to push political propaganda, promote hate speech to divide people, and promote the sex culture by making pornography easily accessible.
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…
What you see from Google or Facebook is no charity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
It's a shame. If telcos are in the loop, my hopes for this shrink 99%...
We (fairly rich, definitely reasonably connected, people) cannot allow the third world to enjoy something as humiliating as imperfect internet (to a standard we barely enjoy ourselves, however immensely beneficial our connections are in spite of this) and we certainly can't allow some of the richest corporations in the world investing in it - after all, the result might not end up perfect.
It's much better potential beneficiaries (you know, some of the worlds poorest and most disadvantaged people) for us to complain, dismiss and and wait until someone will roll out a 100% neutral network, unencumbered by any commercial interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some internet > no internet
That isn't true. One of the reasons why France tends to be a bit behind in all things internet even today is that they had 'minitel', a system that wasn't quite the whole internet (it was information services reachable by phone using a custom terminal with the prestel protocol). It worked so well that they didn't replace their system with the internet when it became available and as a result have been playing catch-u…
Now, today the internet obviously exists, but there's a eye-watering amount of capital investment to be made in third world countries not generally well suited for capital investment, and largely populated by people with very little money, before "the whole internet" is broadly available.
So the situation is more akin to standing around in France in say, 1992 and arguing for shutting down Minitel because in 1997, there will be awesome, real internet, and having Minitel around will be an impediment to quick adoption.
Lasers are a poor choice for atmospheric communication, unless this kind of infrastructure is specifically designed to be deployed in places like deserts with a clear sky all the year around!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that minitel itself played any significant role in France's current situation. It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. Minitel was also in the U.S. in the early 90s, but didn't last because competition wasn't outlawed. This is a substantial step up to the current alternative. No one is being 'locked' in, this will increase education and communication, and therefore the welfare of the…
> It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment. That's definitely another important factor but the fact that minitel actually worked was definitely a detriment. I remember visiting France during the Internet boom in the rest of Europe and people there were proudly showing off their minitel term…
I remember in 2002, when my family, and all my friends' families had an unlimited internet connection, having to use the minitel to register to some exams for some Universities. It felt like an anachronism. So unconvenient. I wouldn't be surprised if the government played its part in leaving it that way.
The next year though, they changed it and we could register through internet.
There's an interesting phenomenon where people in developing countries begin to think that Facebook is the full extent of the internet: Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook. Galpaya, a researcher (and now CEO) with LIRNEasia, a think tank, called Rohan Samarajiva, her boss at the tim…
Back in the day, I think many people equated AOL with "The Internet".