5 ms·

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

by jzd 11y ago

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.
        timtas 11y ago
        Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. The notion of positive liberties breaks down under the slightest scrutiny. What you're really saying is that somebody has a positive obligation to provide every human on earth a particular product, presumably at a price that each can "afford." This claim presents several unsolvable problems. First, there's no objective way to determine what this price might be for each person. Second, if we could establish a price for each individual person to get "full internet," you must admit that any person might prefer Zuck's "partial internet" at, some lower price. If this person's preference runs counter to my sensibilities, that's my problem to get over. Third, on whom does this obligation fall? Are you personally the one obligated to provide every human this product? If not you personally then whom? Zuck? Santa Clause? Fourth, on what basis shall we draw the list of products that I will demand be affordably provided me? And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt, except professor never assigned Locke or Hobbes. Internet access seems rather high up the hierarchy of needs especially in countries where starvation remains known. What shall they demand next, Ferraris? Reductio ad absurdum.
        DanBC 11y ago
        > Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. > And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt. It's from the UN. http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ > While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. > The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws. It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.
- 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

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

by 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.
      - timtas 11y ago
        Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. The notion of positive liberties breaks down under the slightest scrutiny. What you're really saying is that somebody has a positive obligation to provide every human on earth a particular product, presumably at a price that each can "afford." This claim presents several unsolvable problems. First, there's no objective way to determine what this price might be for each person. Second, if we could establish a price for each individual person to get "full internet," you must admit that any person might prefer Zuck's "partial internet" at, some lower price. If this person's preference runs counter to my sensibilities, that's my problem to get over. Third, on whom does this obligation fall? Are you personally the one obligated to provide every human this product? If not you personally then whom? Zuck? Santa Clause? Fourth, on what basis shall we draw the list of products that I will demand be affordably provided me? And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt, except professor never assigned Locke or Hobbes. Internet access seems rather high up the hierarchy of needs especially in countries where starvation remains known. What shall they demand next, Ferraris? Reductio ad absurdum.
        DanBC 11y ago
        > Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. > And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt. It's from the UN. http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ > While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. > The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws. It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.
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