71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that like saying Microsoft shouldn't have been penalized for bundling IE because the user chose the machine which came bundled with Windows which came bundled with IE? (Just so you know, telecom cartels are a reality - at least in India)
I don't see how is it comparable. What is Internet.org bundled with?
Wait what? It's basically blocking everything except their services, did I miss something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how is it comparable. What is Internet.org bundled with?
Bundled with the mobile service (Reliance in India, for eg)
Other internet data packages are bought explicitly by the user, and treat websites neutrally.
http://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/32wtn5/my_attempt_at_...
It seems most people here are against this because of Facebook's (or other service providers') gain from it, but no one is arguing against Mark's actual point: "some access is better than none at all", which I think is more important. Internet.org may not succeed at the end, because of the conflict of interests in many parties (corporate and political) involved in its running. But the idea of providing limited access…
For example, patents are designed to reward investment in innovation in the marketplace by granting a temporary monopoly on that innovation. This leads to billions of dollars in R&D into new drugs and therapies which when successfully brought to market will lead to less suffering and death in the world. Of course, there are those who will not be able to afford the therapy and will die and suffer more. Yet, we as a society believe that inherently, the system leads to a better macro outcome for everyone because we are rewarding risk and innovation.
It's hard to design systems that are going to reward everyone. Similarly, the gain of those who will get access to free internet will benefit that specific group but may cause issues in other parts of the system.