4 ms·

Facebook Meets Skepticism in Bid to Expand Internet in India

45 points by Futurebot 11y ago

pen2l 11y ago
> Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access. Why the assumption that Facebook has good intentions? This is a predatorial move to lock customers into Facebook's ecosystem. And FB is not promising 'universal' Internet access.
- addicted44 11y ago
  Agreed. They named it Internet.org but the service is diametrically opposed to the basic principles that make up the Internet as we know it. A far more appropriate name would have been AOL.org. But that wouldn't have been as good PR and the NYTimss would not be writing about their good intentions if the name of the service was more descriptive of what it actually did.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    As a staring step force them to rename the service to facebook.org
    - tim333 11y ago
      They seem to be going that way: "'Free Basics by Facebook' replaces Internet.org website and app" http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-facebook/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-facebook/
- hellbanner 11y ago
  The same could be said for Apple, who produces cell-phones which many people wish to have so they can communicate through the Cell Network. Those who buy into this as opposed to building their own mesh network are "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem.
  - objclxt 11y ago
    Many devices from many manufacturers communicate through the same network. I don't think your analogy holds: > Those who buy into this as opposed to building their own mesh network are "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem ...or they just buy another phone from another vendor. No mesh network involved.
manibatra 11y ago
Personally I think that making even a fraction of services accessible to a small fraction of users which have never used Internet before is a good cause. The simple act of getting them online, even if providing them limited services, can be a gateway to the "Internet" as a whole. Facebook is a company which exists in the end to increase the value for its shareholders so I think it is expected they obviously will try to further their cause i.e. getting everyone on the Facebook platform. Maybe they overplayed the altruistic card and should have been more forthright about their intentions. "We", people who take for granted the connectivity that Internet offers, in my humble opinion maybe overly skeptic of Facebook's intentions. But to someone who has not accessed internet ever, even a fraction of it can be very empowering.
- userbinator 11y ago
  A "fraction of services" that Facebook wants, not necesarily what the population wants.
  - manibatra 11y ago
    People who do not have access to the internet do not necessarily "want" any services.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  I am not sure that giving full control over how group of people (a large one at that) access information to one company is really a good idea. Considering how social media has been used to create unrest, it might be even a bad idea.
SingAlong 11y ago
Article titled "Facebook meets skepticism..." is actually about Reliance's network issues not helping Internet.org. SaveTheInternet is portrayed as a hurdle for everyone getting free internet access. Facebook's meets "skepticism" because it is offering walled internet in South East Asian countries like India, Indonesia, etc. Facebook + a few services that people didn't ask for. Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a page warning that you will be charged if you visit a service that's not part of internet.org. Google has also been offering such a service called "Google Free Zone" in certain countries. If Facebook or Google feel so charitable, why not help telecom providers write-off data costs and offer say 250mb/month free per person?
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  > Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a page warning that you will be charged if you visit a service that's not part of internet.org. I wonder if they include instant articles in Internet.org - if they do it's a clever way to consolidate and control the media. Grant people like nytimes [0] access and keep them on side when you need a pr piece. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-media-venture-to-include-nbc-buzzfeed-and-new-york-times.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-media-...
- jsudhams 11y ago
  If they are relying reliance then forget, they are dead carrier. The internet.org will neve take off. But I see new player advertising in India like aircel...like basic internet is free... I don't know what it means.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
It's silly. Look I think it's fine for FB to do this, it's better than nothing although the resources could be better spent. But at the end of the day, it's not internet access at all. It's wireless access to a select amount of intranets, basically, including FB and a few partner networks. That's fine, just don't run a campaign about the internet and use a domain like internet.org. Either way, it doesn't really seem to matter. Looks like it's not gaining traction because users want internet, not what is offered. So either they steer the ship towards the goal of providing that, or it dies. I'm sure they're learning tons right now and I'm sure in a few years it'll have improved substantially, so I'm still optimistic.
guelo 11y ago
If I lived in one of these countries I would sue them for false advertising, a few canned crippled websites is not the internet so you can't call it Internet.org. What really pisses me off though is Zuckerberg trying to pass this smarmy scheme as some kind of altruism. Asshole.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  This comment would be so much better without the final word.
jasim 11y ago
This is a PR piece. > Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access. Such lofty ideals. This could've applied to the EFF or the Internet Archive, but Facebook is a far cry.
- pyrophane 11y ago
  In addition to being a PR piece, this further exposes the NY Times lack of capability when it comes to technology reporting. It makes me wonder if they are treating tech a bit like their real estat operations: less as a journalistic endeavour and more as a cash machine for their more serious reporting. Either way, anyone with a solid background in tech surely would have recommended a few important points about internet.org that should have had a place in this coverage.
  - IIAOPSW 11y ago
    > this further exposes the NY Times lack of capability full stop.
simula67 11y ago
Last I heard, Internet.org is not the "Internet". It was only a program to grant access to a limited set of sites like Facebook for free. It has since been re branded to 'Free Basics' but IMO that is still misleading.
intopieces 11y ago
Does Facebook collect personal data from the users of the Basics program (beyond what they already collect as Facebook)? This seems like a opportunity to exploit/sell information about a group of people who are even less likely that first-world Internet users to understand the implications of such a trade.

45 points by Futurebot 11y ago

pen2l 11y ago

> Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access. Why the assumption that Facebook has good intentions? This is a predatorial move to lock customers into Facebook's ecosystem. And FB is not promising 'universal' Internet access.

addicted44 11y ago
Agreed. They named it Internet.org but the service is diametrically opposed to the basic principles that make up the Internet as we know it. A far more appropriate name would have been AOL.org. But that wouldn't have been as good PR and the NYTimss would not be writing about their good intentions if the name of the service was more descriptive of what it actually did.
- x5n1 11y ago
  As a staring step force them to rename the service to facebook.org
  - tim333 11y ago
    They seem to be going that way: "'Free Basics by Facebook' replaces Internet.org website and app" http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-facebook/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-facebook/
hellbanner 11y ago
The same could be said for Apple, who produces cell-phones which many people wish to have so they can communicate through the Cell Network. Those who buy into this as opposed to building their own mesh network are "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem.
- objclxt 11y ago
  Many devices from many manufacturers communicate through the same network. I don't think your analogy holds: > Those who buy into this as opposed to building their own mesh network are "locked in" to the Apple ecosystem ...or they just buy another phone from another vendor. No mesh network involved.

manibatra 11y ago

Personally I think that making even a fraction of services accessible to a small fraction of users which have never used Internet before is a good cause. The simple act of getting them online, even if providing them limited services, can be a gateway to the "Internet" as a whole. Facebook is a company which exists in the end to increase the value for its shareholders so I think it is expected they obviously will try to further their cause i.e. getting everyone on the Facebook platform. Maybe they overplayed the altruistic card and should have been more forthright about their intentions. "We", people who take for granted the connectivity that Internet offers, in my humble opinion maybe overly skeptic of Facebook's intentions. But to someone who has not accessed internet ever, even a fraction of it can be very empowering.

userbinator 11y ago
A "fraction of services" that Facebook wants, not necesarily what the population wants.
- manibatra 11y ago
  People who do not have access to the internet do not necessarily "want" any services.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
I am not sure that giving full control over how group of people (a large one at that) access information to one company is really a good idea. Considering how social media has been used to create unrest, it might be even a bad idea.

SingAlong 11y ago

Article titled "Facebook meets skepticism..." is actually about Reliance's network issues not helping Internet.org. SaveTheInternet is portrayed as a hurdle for everyone getting free internet access. Facebook's meets "skepticism" because it is offering walled internet in South East Asian countries like India, Indonesia, etc. Facebook + a few services that people didn't ask for. Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a page warning that you will be charged if you visit a service that's not part of internet.org. Google has also been offering such a service called "Google Free Zone" in certain countries. If Facebook or Google feel so charitable, why not help telecom providers write-off data costs and offer say 250mb/month free per person?

mcintyre1994 11y ago
> Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a page warning that you will be charged if you visit a service that's not part of internet.org. I wonder if they include instant articles in Internet.org - if they do it's a clever way to consolidate and control the media. Grant people like nytimes [0] access and keep them on side when you need a pr piece. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-media-venture-to-include-nbc-buzzfeed-and-new-york-times.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-media-...
jsudhams 11y ago
If they are relying reliance then forget, they are dead carrier. The internet.org will neve take off. But I see new player advertising in India like aircel...like basic internet is free... I don't know what it means.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

It's silly. Look I think it's fine for FB to do this, it's better than nothing although the resources could be better spent. But at the end of the day, it's not internet access at all. It's wireless access to a select amount of intranets, basically, including FB and a few partner networks. That's fine, just don't run a campaign about the internet and use a domain like internet.org. Either way, it doesn't really seem to matter. Looks like it's not gaining traction because users want internet, not what is offered. So either they steer the ship towards the goal of providing that, or it dies. I'm sure they're learning tons right now and I'm sure in a few years it'll have improved substantially, so I'm still optimistic.

guelo 11y ago

If I lived in one of these countries I would sue them for false advertising, a few canned crippled websites is not the internet so you can't call it Internet.org. What really pisses me off though is Zuckerberg trying to pass this smarmy scheme as some kind of altruism. Asshole.

xiaoma 11y ago
This comment would be so much better without the final word.

jasim 11y ago

This is a PR piece. > Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access. Such lofty ideals. This could've applied to the EFF or the Internet Archive, but Facebook is a far cry.

pyrophane 11y ago
In addition to being a PR piece, this further exposes the NY Times lack of capability when it comes to technology reporting. It makes me wonder if they are treating tech a bit like their real estat operations: less as a journalistic endeavour and more as a cash machine for their more serious reporting. Either way, anyone with a solid background in tech surely would have recommended a few important points about internet.org that should have had a place in this coverage.
- IIAOPSW 11y ago
  > this further exposes the NY Times lack of capability full stop.

simula67 11y ago

Last I heard, Internet.org is not the "Internet". It was only a program to grant access to a limited set of sites like Facebook for free. It has since been re branded to 'Free Basics' but IMO that is still misleading.

intopieces 11y ago

Does Facebook collect personal data from the users of the Basics program (beyond what they already collect as Facebook)? This seems like a opportunity to exploit/sell information about a group of people who are even less likely that first-world Internet users to understand the implications of such a trade.