About Internet.org and net neutrality
facebook.com
About Internet.org and net neutrality
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#2It's amazing what a little engagement can do for public perception.
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#3It's incontrovertible that internet.org throws net neutrality to the wind. The only question is whether, in this case, it's worth it. I guess he makes a decent argument in that regard, but it's disingenuous to claim that this isn't "violating the spirit of net neutrality."
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#4[deleted]
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#5[deleted]
Maybe free access to wikipedia might stop a better"wikipedia" from ever going mainstream?
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#6> Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services or create fast lanes
Nah, no one cares about the carpool lanes -- they care about the toll roads.
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#7An interesting exchange in the comments on this post:
> Sagar Kamat: Mark The aspect of Internet.org that is in conflict with Net Neutrality is that FB chooses which services are offered for free to the users. That's an attractive way of getting new users hooked onto popular services. Why not just sponsor a certain data cap for users instead and let them decide which services they want to use? That will be in line with ur vision of internet for all as well as Neutral
> Mark Zuckerberg: We actually don't choose the services by ourselves. We work with local governments and the mobile operators to identify local services in each country.
> Cheenu Madan: So Mark, can you explain then how internet.org works in India? Did Reliance choose the services? Why then, Bing Search over Google Search (clearly better) for example?
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#8> Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services or create fast lanes Nah, no one cares about the carpool lanes -- they care about the toll roads.
The throttle is that any other service requires a data plan and that is not free.
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#9"It's too expensive to make the whole internet free."
Translation: "It is not lucrative enough to us to make the whole internet free. We only want you looking at things where we stand to make money off of you, not anyone else."
Sure, Facebook wants to help connect some of the poorest people in the world, but only if it's the company that stands to make money from the proposition.
Remember kids, if you're not paying, you're the product.
Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality
#10... Sounds much like doublespeak. There's no actual addressing any concerns. Just "think of the chil^H^H^H^H villagers!"
"We fully support net neutrality." ... "Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services"
So if I try to access my own website via Internet.org, how does that work again?
Also note how instead of saying "certain websites", Internet.org provides access to "basic internet services". Slick try to redefine "basic" in terms of his own website. He says it "lowers the cost of accessing the internet" ... but that's not really true, since you cannot access the Internet via this system, only select services.
"saying that offering some services for free goes against the spirit of net neutrality. I strongly disagree with this."
No two rational people can disagree (with the same priors). Therefore saying you disagree is a cute/passive aggressive way of saying "you're wrong" or "you have wrong information". There is no doubt that "zero rating" aka "get FB for free" is directly against the concept of net neutrality. You can say you "disagree", but that's simply incorrect.
On the plus side, at least his piece was rather heavy handed so hopefully FB's goal will be clear to others and continued opposition. (Hopefully...)
P.S. The Internet is usually capitalized. (I know, I'm old or something.)