5 ms·

Why are people so insistent that Facebook's Internet.org is a bad thing? Is no internet really better than limited internet? These people have almost no intern

by exacube 11y ago

Why are people so insistent that Facebook's Internet.org is a bad thing? Is no internet really better than limited internet? These people have almost no internet right now. A lot of these countries can now use Google and Wikipedia. It's either total freedom for free, or no freedom at all?

jzd 11y ago
Very good point. I would like to see more debate about this particular issue.
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  What is there to debate? Question: Is being a slave really worse than being poor?
  - crazy1van 11y ago
    > Question: Is being a slave really worse than being poor? Good question. I'd rather let people decide that for themselves than have wealthy people half way around the globe decide it for them by removing one option.
    - firasd 11y ago
      The geographic distance claim isn’t accurate; this program ran into its first organized opposition from net neutrality activists in India.
  - peterhunt 11y ago
    Did you just equate Internet.org to slavery? I can't speak for dang, but I don't think that type of hyperbole is appreciated on HN.
    - quadrangle 11y ago
      Reductio ad absurdem ≠ hyperbole I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid. In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making. In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"
      - timtas 11y ago
        Except voluntarily purchasing an inexpensive product nohow "limits your freedoms." I purchase a lousy cup of coffee from a vending machine; am I a slave if it's inferior to Starbucks? Reductio ad absurdum.
        cubancigar11 11y ago
        It is not voluntary when it is the only thing left in the market. We are already living in an age where some places on this planet consider basic internet connection a human rights issues so no, internet is a necessity.
  - zo1 11y ago
    In some cases or instances, conditions of one might be better than the other. However, universally, I'd say almost everyone would agree that being a slave is bad/wrong/immoral.
    - cubancigar11 11y ago
      From a purely survivalist approach slavery is without a doubt a better proposition because it is nigh impossible to break away from poverty. But lack of free and targeted internet is not poverty. Internet is already extremely cheap in India - cheaper than USA for example - and is easily available via mobile phones that are more ubiquitous than toilets! To say that Internet.org is an alternative to no internet is not only disingenuous it is basically a mockery of 'them 3rd worlders...' as if they will never get internet without Internet.org. And that too for India? A country that has achieved more feats in technology domain than many of the first world countries (and before solving the problem of toilet)? It is hard to sell product to a level-headed person. Not to say that Indian government is squarely going to reject Internet.org - Indian government - specially judiciary - is mind bogglingly corrupt - but it should be rejected.
  - Rexxar 11y ago
    Old question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf
dangero 11y ago
I think the main issue is the name not the product. If it was honest about what it was then fine it's just modern AOL, but the name internet.org is at minimum misleading.
- poppup 11y ago
  We all get a bad feeling in our gut when we know something is not right. Posing as a non profit with the "Internet" brand is not right. To your point, if they were just upfront about what they're doing, it wouldn't be an issue.
- eggie 11y ago
  It is so precisely AOL! WorldOnLine! They are actually online, just not on the open internet.
  - salgernon 11y ago
    Right down to movies credits ending with "like us on facebook" instead of "AOL Keyword My90sMovie". Media captures the mindset of the time, but mindset changes, orphaning the sentiment.
- Manishearth 11y ago
  Note that this is very obviously deliberate. It's not just the name. All the outreach around internet.org brands it as something its not. Which is all the more reason to be suspicious.
deftnerd 11y ago
In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet. With no internet, people WANT the internet very badly. With no internet, ambitious entrepreneurs see a market willing to pay for their services. No internet births wireless ISP's and Co-op internet and mobile providers. If there is a free, but limited, internet then customers might not be willing to pay money for internet service anymore and there won't be enough demand for a business to try to bring real internet to those areas.
- andreyf 11y ago
  Did you read the article? It claims internet.org is not limited internet: > Mark Zuckerberg had come out in defence of the programme, saying it did not block or throttle services and is not in conflict with net neutrality.
  - arihant 11y ago
    It is. Free lane is fundamentally similar to fast lane. Also, if you use Internet.org, you cannot use other websites unless you stop using Internet.org, you get a "fuck off" message for any other website you want to visit, even if you want to pay for it with usual pay as you go data charges.
  - sa1 11y ago
    If you can't open any other website other than the 50 or so provided by Facebook, then it is in effect a limited internet. Arguments that "saying it did not block or throttle services", tries to imply that "This is not the Internet, so we are not blocking anything on the Internet". That's just hogwash.
  - voxic11 11y ago
    Just because it doesn't throttle services doesn't change the fact that internet.org gets to decide what services get on the platform in the first place. "Developer participation on the Internet.org Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms . Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Internet.org, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook. Submission does not guarantee that your site(s) will be made available through Internet.org." https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org
eternalban 11y ago
Facebook can always donate the money with no strings attached to a transparently operated and monitored organization.
andreyf 11y ago
Because the spread of a network made and paid for by advertisers will hinder the spread of the network most of us have now, which is mostly paid for by the users. Internet.org is not mis-named, it's an intentional hijacking of the "internet" brand to refer to a different network with different people and institutions in control.
RexRollman 11y ago
Why are people so oblivious to just how evil Facebook is? Yes, no Internet is better than Facebook Internet.
0x4a42 11y ago
Limited Internet is not Internet. They should have called it "Facebook-Network". Even AOL was more Internet than this.
canow 11y ago
Don't worry, it will become more limited as it become more popular. Limited Internet is bad.
chaitanya 11y ago
That's because better alternatives exist that provide access to the whole Internet free of cost. For example, Mozilla is trying out a couple of variants of free Internet in Africa and Bangladesh: https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero-rating-and-the-open-internet/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero-rating-and-t... Another post worth reading on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3l9y7t/net_neutrality_supporters_are_not_depriving_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3l9y7t/net_neutralit...

by exacube 11y ago

jzd 11y ago

Very good point. I would like to see more debate about this particular issue.

cubancigar11 11y ago
What is there to debate? Question: Is being a slave really worse than being poor?
- crazy1van 11y ago
  > Question: Is being a slave really worse than being poor? Good question. I'd rather let people decide that for themselves than have wealthy people half way around the globe decide it for them by removing one option.
  - firasd 11y ago
    The geographic distance claim isn’t accurate; this program ran into its first organized opposition from net neutrality activists in India.
- peterhunt 11y ago
  Did you just equate Internet.org to slavery? I can't speak for dang, but I don't think that type of hyperbole is appreciated on HN.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Reductio ad absurdem ≠ hyperbole I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid. In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making. In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"
    - timtas 11y ago
      Except voluntarily purchasing an inexpensive product nohow "limits your freedoms." I purchase a lousy cup of coffee from a vending machine; am I a slave if it's inferior to Starbucks? Reductio ad absurdum.
      - cubancigar11 11y ago
        It is not voluntary when it is the only thing left in the market. We are already living in an age where some places on this planet consider basic internet connection a human rights issues so no, internet is a necessity.
- zo1 11y ago
  In some cases or instances, conditions of one might be better than the other. However, universally, I'd say almost everyone would agree that being a slave is bad/wrong/immoral.
  - cubancigar11 11y ago
    From a purely survivalist approach slavery is without a doubt a better proposition because it is nigh impossible to break away from poverty. But lack of free and targeted internet is not poverty. Internet is already extremely cheap in India - cheaper than USA for example - and is easily available via mobile phones that are more ubiquitous than toilets! To say that Internet.org is an alternative to no internet is not only disingenuous it is basically a mockery of 'them 3rd worlders...' as if they will never get internet without Internet.org. And that too for India? A country that has achieved more feats in technology domain than many of the first world countries (and before solving the problem of toilet)? It is hard to sell product to a level-headed person. Not to say that Indian government is squarely going to reject Internet.org - Indian government - specially judiciary - is mind bogglingly corrupt - but it should be rejected.
- Rexxar 11y ago
  Old question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf

dangero 11y ago

I think the main issue is the name not the product. If it was honest about what it was then fine it's just modern AOL, but the name internet.org is at minimum misleading.

poppup 11y ago
We all get a bad feeling in our gut when we know something is not right. Posing as a non profit with the "Internet" brand is not right. To your point, if they were just upfront about what they're doing, it wouldn't be an issue.
eggie 11y ago
It is so precisely AOL! WorldOnLine! They are actually online, just not on the open internet.
- salgernon 11y ago
  Right down to movies credits ending with "like us on facebook" instead of "AOL Keyword My90sMovie". Media captures the mindset of the time, but mindset changes, orphaning the sentiment.
Manishearth 11y ago
Note that this is very obviously deliberate. It's not just the name. All the outreach around internet.org brands it as something its not. Which is all the more reason to be suspicious.

deftnerd 11y ago

In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet. With no internet, people WANT the internet very badly. With no internet, ambitious entrepreneurs see a market willing to pay for their services. No internet births wireless ISP's and Co-op internet and mobile providers. If there is a free, but limited, internet then customers might not be willing to pay money for internet service anymore and there won't be enough demand for a business to try to bring real internet to those areas.

andreyf 11y ago
Did you read the article? It claims internet.org is not limited internet: > Mark Zuckerberg had come out in defence of the programme, saying it did not block or throttle services and is not in conflict with net neutrality.
- arihant 11y ago
  It is. Free lane is fundamentally similar to fast lane. Also, if you use Internet.org, you cannot use other websites unless you stop using Internet.org, you get a "fuck off" message for any other website you want to visit, even if you want to pay for it with usual pay as you go data charges.
- sa1 11y ago
  If you can't open any other website other than the 50 or so provided by Facebook, then it is in effect a limited internet. Arguments that "saying it did not block or throttle services", tries to imply that "This is not the Internet, so we are not blocking anything on the Internet". That's just hogwash.
- voxic11 11y ago
  Just because it doesn't throttle services doesn't change the fact that internet.org gets to decide what services get on the platform in the first place. "Developer participation on the Internet.org Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms . Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Internet.org, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook. Submission does not guarantee that your site(s) will be made available through Internet.org." https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

eternalban 11y ago

Facebook can always donate the money with no strings attached to a transparently operated and monitored organization.

andreyf 11y ago

Because the spread of a network made and paid for by advertisers will hinder the spread of the network most of us have now, which is mostly paid for by the users. Internet.org is not mis-named, it's an intentional hijacking of the "internet" brand to refer to a different network with different people and institutions in control.

RexRollman 11y ago

Why are people so oblivious to just how evil Facebook is? Yes, no Internet is better than Facebook Internet.

0x4a42 11y ago

Limited Internet is not Internet. They should have called it "Facebook-Network". Even AOL was more Internet than this.

canow 11y ago

Don't worry, it will become more limited as it become more popular. Limited Internet is bad.

chaitanya 11y ago

That's because better alternatives exist that provide access to the whole Internet free of cost. For example, Mozilla is trying out a couple of variants of free Internet in Africa and Bangladesh: https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero-rating-and-the-open-internet/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero-rating-and-t... Another post worth reading on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3l9y7t/net_neutrality_supporters_are_not_depriving_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3l9y7t/net_neutralit...