12 ms·

Opposition to Facebook's new internet.org

280 points by williswee 11y ago

nugget 11y ago
This is an important topic that should be top of mind for all of us and discussed on a regular basis. Facebook is trying hard to become like AOL in the mid 90s. Total control from soup to nuts. Zuckerberg and his team are very clever and calculated in their approach (as any of us might be in their position, similarly incentivized and with no malicious intentions). But we will all be worse off if they are successful. The open web is one of the few things in life I've found worth really fighting for.
- cardosof 11y ago
  "But we will all be worse off if they are successful." Sorry if this is something obvious to everyone else, but could you explain why it wouldn't be open and why that's a bad thing? Is this some sort of "centralization of power" issue?
  - sankha93 11y ago
    The open web is essentially open because anybody with a computer can create and access content online. The cost to entry is almost nil, be it a big corporation or a small startup or any individual. With Facebook's Internet.org or the "Free Basics" they would be the gatekeepers of defining what the free basic are. It creates a sort of economic divide - why would people people pay to access your site, when a similar big player is providing services on the Facebook's free basic plan?
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      How is it better for those people to not have internet at all?
      - Retra 11y ago
        That's not "the Internet" as it is known, but another kind of service. They wouldn't have internet. They'd have something else that could easily be (and probably will be) designed to placate the desire to have internet.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Again: how is that worse than having nothing? And if the argument assumes that they'll eventually have the ability to get full internet, but won't want it at whatever price it costs, then isn't that their choice? If having a free service makes them unwilling to pay for a better service, what's the problem? There's no options being denied here. For anyone that wants, Facebook's offering has only benefits. If someone thinks it has drawbacks, they're free not to use it. I seriously don't see the problem here.
        Retra 11y ago
        It's worse than nothing because 'nothing' doesn't line Facebook's pockets and empower their information monopoly over you.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        So enabling people to access some sites is now evil because it makes people money (which there's no evidence for; who's paying to advertise to people to poor to pay for internet?)
        Retra 11y ago
        Do you honestly think the only way the internet could possibly reach these people is through Facebook? This is not an all vs nothing situation. This is a problem with dozens of different solutions and hundreds of different possible outcomes. Facebook says their plan makes for a just world, and you agree with that because you're both being myopic. Facebook at least has an excuse.
    - m1sta_ 11y ago
      Think of Internet.org as part VC then.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - aravindet 11y ago
    Yes. Internet.org will hand facebook enormous power that would threaten open competition on the public internet, not just on internet.org. Participation on internet.org is subject to approval by Facebook and ISPs. They choose the winners on their platform, not end users. Imagine a world where, say, 20% of users are on internet.org. If you're building a consumer service that benefits from network effects, you must be on internet.org or else you will be eaten up by a competitor who is. Facebook, through its veto over internet.org participation, can now play an outsize role in deciding which consumer internet services get traction and which don’t. App developers will divert resources from building features that users want, into building features that gets them perks from Facebook — probably by pushing more and more user data into the “open” graph. This would not just harm internet.org consumers, it will harm every internet user.
    - briandear 11y ago
      The veto power is the part that makes this whole thing dishonest. Claiming non profit status and presumably taking advantage of tax exemptions in order to boost Facebook's core business? Does anyone else see the conflicts there? Essentially Zuckerberg is trying to use the strategy Carlos Slim used in Mexico with mobile phones: be the only game in town for years by making exclusivity deals with the government and by the time the competition is finally able to compete in a free(er) market, Slim has such a head start as to be unstoppable. Except now Zuck is doing this at a billion scale rather than a Mexico scale. I think the Google balloon internet project has far more value than this. Google wants you to use their services, but at least they are interested in the entire internet for the poor and not just Facebook-y type access.
    - tombrossman 11y ago
      Remember that for some users Facebook effectively is the Internet. They have a normal broadband connection in a relatively affluent western country but spend much of their time online using Facebook for browsing and two-way communication with other Facebook users. On a regular basis I'll hear someone mention 'their website' and when I ask for the URL it is clear from their reply that what they mean is they have a Facebook page for their group/business/whatever. When I press further they seem to understand the concept that owning a domain name and having a 'website' on Facebook are not exactly the same. These are normal users, not stupid people, and this is how perceive things right now. This is anecdotal and I don't have any peer-reviewed studies to cite but I suspect this is pretty common and I wonder if others are seeing the same thing?
- headmelted 11y ago
  The AOL comparison seems appropriate and is not one I've heard before, good point. I'd argue that this has even darker motivations than AOL ever did though. At least with AOL people had a choice. There were alternatives to living inside the walled garden. This seems more like indentured servitude. I suspect strongly that the poorest people that Facebook is targeting here have no option as they can't afford any data charges at all, so will sign up because its this or nothing. Many of these folks may never have even seen the internet. There's a very real chance that a lot of them will believe that the curated Facebook internet is the internet proper. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg considers himself to be a fair and reasonable gatekeeper so doesn't see this as a problem, but this is almost certainly going to be abused sooner or later (spoiler: sooner).
  - anandr2013 11y ago
    I think even if Mark Zuckerberg considers himself to be a fair and reasonable gatekeeper, there is still a problem, as explained by this note on cultural hegemony (https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/net-neutrality-and-hegemony https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/net-neutrality-and-heg...). The marginalised will simply get even more marginalised.
    - forgottenpass 11y ago
      The problem with gatekeeping is that nobody can be qualified or suitable to fulfill the role of gatekeeper. Focusing on arguments like cultural hegemony is a distraction that gives the impression if enough symptoms are covered-up that the root cause can persist.
      - anandr2013 11y ago
        Right, of course. My point was that even if there is someone who was perfectly qualified to be a gatekeeper, there are still other problems to consider.
- zaidf 11y ago
  No one doubts that the open web is a good thing. But no where in your entire post do you address the apparent upside of Internet.org: people who wouldn't be able to afford or access the Internet can access at least some parts of it. I think at that point the argument against Internet.org isn't as black and white. You can make an argument that in the long run it might be a bad thing but you have to acknowledge that at least in the near term it is providing some benefit.
  - mehrdada 11y ago
    Right, but if you look at the adoption curves of technology, empirically, the long run comes quite quickly, so it is questionable that accelerating technology adoption is worth the long term monopoly leverage it brings. EDIT: this is especially true considering Internet.org, despite its pitch, does not actually bring much to the connectivity infrastructure. It works in places where mobile connectivity infrastructure already exists, just (presumably) not affordable enough. It is purely an economic arbitrage game, not infrastructure development. EDIT2: I also speculate that competition between big players (e.g. Google vs Facebook) will not help resolve the problem either. Since all incumbents benefit from stuff like this, and almost all newcomers lose, big guys have few incentives to break down such paradigms after they are built up (very much like gerrymandering that Democrats and Republicans both like as it benefits them all).
    - xseotheo 11y ago
      You seem to be misinformed regarding infrastructure. Please research facebook's Aquila before posting.
      - skj 11y ago
        This would be a great opportunity to correct any misconceptions that might be present. If not for the op, for all the readers.
      - forgottenpass 11y ago
        I googled it up, and from the dates on news reports, it looks like it's been stuck in "ready for testing" limbo for months and there are zero meaningful specs or details on the drone itself published. I also found Tim Berners-Lee trashing the buisness model, and philanthropist Bill Gates pointing out there are more important problems to solve in the developing world before connectivity. I didn't think I could be more negative on Facebook's shitty internet.org, but now I am. Thanks for encouraging me to do the research!
- benevol 11y ago
  > Facebook is trying hard to become like AOL in the mid 90s. Total control from soup to nuts. Exactly what the government likes, wants & supports - perfect for mass surveillance. Best case: Single point of access & monopoly situations. Which is why these huge companies will always be treated favorably by the government (despite what it may look like).
- zzleeper 11y ago
  Wow, I haven't thought of it that way but it makes perfect sense. Almost like a web portal (think Yahoo!) with email, chat, pictures, news on the right side, etc. but under a social aegis
- drumdance 11y ago
  It's amazing to me how Facebook reinvented the AOL keyword from the outside in.
dayon 11y ago
It's the #1 reason I am boycotting all Facebook products. Zuckerberg is a very bad man.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Ignoring hanlon's razor (and its variations) and immediately assuming malice everywhere will prevent you from understanding the problem. You can't fix a problem you do not understand. So please don't just go around throwing "x is a very bad man" unless you have tangible proof, it serves no purpose.
  - xorcist 11y ago
    "Bad" doesn't necessarily equate with malice. In Internet discourse it's uncommon that "evil" carries very specific meaning: centralized, separate access to signalling from data, specifications closed or under NDA, gatekeepers for services, potentially rent-seeking. In short, everything that the new TCP/IP landscape brought and many geeks loved at first sight. It's a very silly word, but it's useful, because you can't start every conversation by debating the value of decentralization. That way you can signal that you are not interested in the never ending conversation about emergency services and quality of service, and instead want to focus on what kind of service innovation a network of peers could bring.
  - dayon 11y ago
    Which razor is the one where you automatically presume I think the person is intentionally malicious? The black guy in Terminator 2 wasn't being malicious, but he was a very bad man in regards to what he was bringing to the human race. Also, it's impossible to provide tangible proof for any opinion. My opinion is that Zuckerberg is a very bad person, and that is not a personal attack. A personal attack is never an opinion. Rather, personal attacks are when people have the intent of attacking to insult, to hurt, to throw wrenches into arguments, and so on. Hacker News might disagree and appeal to their arbitrary rules about what's right and wrong, but to call my comment that "Zuckerberg is a very bad man" an assumption of malice, an unproven claim, or a personal attack is more of all three against myself than anything.
xseotheo 11y ago
This article is written from the point of view of a tech savvy but it's completely missing empathy. IMHO It completely misses the point. The idea of internet.org as I understand it is not to allow everyone, everywhere to see cat videos. But rather to show people the value of connectivity. Most people that are not connected do not see a value on it. They think it won't help them in any way in their lives, that's a rich kid thing. The idea of the project I believe is to provide a free taste of limited functionality, to open that door to new opportunities. Then decide whether the value is worth it or not, and purchase an internet plan as his/her requirements dictate. It's a sort of "internet" literacy that wants to be spread. Feel free to actually check what the internet.org package offers, and imagine how it can help someone appreciate the value of being connected. Right now due to lack of knowledge people without any access to internet have no idea how their crippling their own future, and their children's future. I believe the idea of internet.org is to provide some sort of basic free services that may help people decide whether full internet connectivity is for them or not, and try to change the "that's a thing only for rich/tech/lazy/young people" mentality that may prevail in rural areas for example. In full disclosure I worked for fb for 1.5 years and haven't worked for them for half a year. These are my personal opinions .
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I recommend reading the threads from previous discussions (search HN for "internet.org") to find out why people oppose the name and the implementation.
  - spicyj 11y ago
    The product was renamed to Free Basics to make its goal clearer.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- chippy 11y ago
  You describe your belief of the idea of internet.org really well - it's the same one as most people have. The article spends half of itself describing how this idea is a myth. The article is saying that this Good Idea is, if you look at it, devoid of any humanitarian, charitable and not for profit motives. It's not that the article is missing empathy, it's that the article describes how Internet.org is devoid of empathy.
gamesbrainiac 11y ago
We've had this discussion before. This is merely rebranding and we all know what internet.org is really about. And can we please stop being shocked by any of it? Facebook is a corporation, it is not a charity, it needs to make money since it promised its investors bucketloads of gold. That being said, I feel that these discussions do little other than blame Facebook. What we need is a good alternative that _does_ provide a full internet connection albeit at low speeds to people in developing regions of the world and the only way that I see we can possibly achieve this is to have good legislation. I remember having just a dial up modem, and that was enough for me to move up the social ladder; information can bring about social mobility. Right now, the _value_ of the internet is evident to most people in government, all that we need to do is catalyze the process of making internet a fundamental right in most developing countries, or at least making internet _available_ and _affordable_ to everyone even if that means giving tax cuts to people.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  First of all, mobile Internet user base in India is already growing at 4% every month! And then, there _are_ alternatives. Aircel has launched free data at 64kbps. Airtel has announced cashback scheme for data usage. Mozilla will be launching an ad-subsidized data access plan. All of these are network neutral.
- chippy 11y ago
  > We've had this discussion before. > Can we please stop being shocked by any of it No. Please do not shut down discussion, anytime. This kills the open internet.
halfcentaur 11y ago
I'm pretty sure most of these counter points are Facebook team accounts. Reasonable short term counterpoints to opposing Internet.org exist —more access and faster. Facebook is leveraging those counter points into a market strategy that undermines one of the central value propositions of the current open internet. It's defensible; it's not all bad. But its not ideal; it is distinctively bad in a serious way. Ideally Facebook would promote access to the open web, rather than undermine it by promoting access to the Facebook version.
- zaidf 11y ago
  It's defensible; it's not all bad. You're one of the few exceptions to admit that it isn't all bad. Most arguments against internet.org refuse to acknowledge the pros of it and thereby in my view are not objective or honest.
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    OTOH, I have found that all of them agree that universal access is important. Haven't seen any one of them saying "the poor people should not get the free data!"
  - dayon 11y ago
    When explaining why heroin is bad and should remain illegal, how often do critics point out the drug's pros? Are critics not being objective or honest when they adamantly condemn it? Or, what about when assessing the results of Hitler's reign in Germany? Are historians being dishonest and subjective when they don't bring up the positive consequences of his actions? There are countless other examples. If someone feels very negatively about "Free Basics", I'm not sure why they're not being objective or honest by leaving out potential pros.
aaroninsf 11y ago
Not-really-rhetorical question: how much less contentious would internet.org be, if it were [branded] say... facebook.net? IMO quite a bit. The substantive criticisms would be unchanged; but two accelerants would be removed from the fire: the insinuation that the service 'is' the internet or some substantive subset of it; and that it is a charitable undertaking first and foremost.
- ceras 11y ago
  IIRC the product is not longer called internet.org anyway; it's now called "free basics."
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    It's still a "project of Internet.org", alongside Facebook's Internet-providing drone things.
- newsignup 11y ago
  Initially, I had seen people opposing on just that fact "they are misleading people by calling it internet.org", most of them.
- fabulist 11y ago
  Maybe it would be less contentious, but paying telecom companies to deliver Facebook for free is anticompetative and I'm not a fan of monopolies or monopolizing tactics. In my mind, this is an even bigger issue than their lack of frankness.
supersan 11y ago
Yes, Facebook has had an amazing growth in India in the last year (more than any other country). Facebook connects people and there are a billion people in India so it only makes sense to get them online or better yet get them online while keeping them in a walled garden for as long as possible so they can reap the maximum rewards out of it. Facebook portrays this as a humanitarian effort to bring poor people online (see internet.org ads on YouTube which portrays this as giving people free electricity) but it's only for their own benefit in the long run. It's sad to see that Facebook is trying to kill the same thing which made it what it is. Zuckerberg should wonder what it would be if 20% of India was still using MySpace because they offered it for free in 2009 and didn't give them any option to sign up for Facebook.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > Facebook portrays this as a humanitarian effort ... > but it's only for their own benefit in the long run. Sounds like every government aid agency ever. Perhaps you should also ask India to start refusing handouts from USAID, DFID, AusAID and so on...?
  - fabulist 11y ago
    If the aid they're receiving will ultimately be more harmful than helpful? Yes. It is one thing to be self-interested, and another to be duplicitous.
kenrick95 11y ago
Question: Besides Facebook, what are the apps/sites that are allowed by internet.org's "Free Basics"? I can't find the list at internet.org.
thetruthseeker1 11y ago
The article gives one point of view. The argument seem to imply that, this free internet is worse than no internet at all. I am not sure I buy into that yet. What I do think will be great is if the Govt of India and internet.org can quickly iterate over this plan, see what is working and what is not working and come up with regulations. Mr. Mahesh made a comment about something that Comcast wanted to do was outlawed - which is essentially regulations. I think if India can quickly iterate and regulate with this new internet.org, that might be the solution to the problem.
ChrisNorstrom 11y ago
Once you understand what this is, you realize how disgusting it is. This isn't a charity to "help connect people" nor a fair business exchange. This is It's a land grab on a developing market. A way to break into India early on and establish a monopoly of internet companies (before Indians are able to build theirs). Meaning less competition and nearly no way for India to profitably have its own. Africa's largest social network Mxit already shut down when it couldn't compete with Facebook and Twitter. What chance are home grown indian social networks going to have with Internet.org land grab scheme? In the still-early days of internet at least 3 companies had Free Dial-Up Internet service suplimented with ads. They gave you access to ALL of the internet and simply put an ad banner on the bottom of the screen at all times you were connected. We had Net-Zero (FREE dialup internet with Ads), K-mart Blue-Light (FREE dialup with ads), and Juno (FREE dial up with ads). All three of them went off of the FREE ad based model eventually because it was unsustainable (downloads and Napster required larger and larger amounts of bandwidth). This wouldn't work today due to ad blockers and torrents. Internet.org doesn't even give you access to the whole internet. So the only way for this to pay off is for Facebook and Co to become a monopoly in India. You might not care because it's an American company expanding its influence abroad, but how would you feel if China did the same to us in the USA? And we had no chance of ever developing Facebook?
evilFacebook 11y ago
it's widely accepted that big boys don't play fair but Facebook has set a new standard of LOW the only way (& ambitious) I see is that for all the engineers at Facebook to say NO for this evil project anyone with any sense of decency couldn't possibly agree to be involved in this evil project
EugeneOZ 11y ago
Access to some information is better than no access to information. Some way to communicate is better than no way to communicate.
- fabulist 11y ago
  Why are you under the impression that people without Internet can't or don't communicate with each other? This is not access to communication or information, it's access to frivolous distraction. Facebook has less bandwidth and more strings than traditional verbal and written communication.
  - EugeneOZ 11y ago
    Because when I was young we were having phones, even mobile phones, but first few years - without internet. My mobile site was one of the first mobile sites in Russia. And I know for sure: communication by phones/mail is as different from internet communication, as planet is different with atom. Coordinated networks are MUCH different than list of contacts in phone.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
jld89 11y ago
A partial article but nontheless the point has been made. It seems to me like facebook is being more and more agressive as people are starting to lose interest in the network. And specially as there are more and more competitors that have much more to offer, such as Tsu. I am glad that their monopoly generating idea of internet.org is taking so much flak. I hope it continues, projects like these deserve to die.

280 points by williswee 11y ago

This is an important topic that should be top of mind for all of us and discussed on a regular basis. Facebook is trying hard to become like AOL in the mid 90s. Total control from soup to nuts. Zuckerberg and his team are very clever and calculated in their approach (as any of us might be in their position, similarly incentivized and with no malicious intentions). But we will all be worse off if they are successful. The open web is one of the few things in life I've found worth really fighting for.

cardosof 11y ago
"But we will all be worse off if they are successful." Sorry if this is something obvious to everyone else, but could you explain why it wouldn't be open and why that's a bad thing? Is this some sort of "centralization of power" issue?
- sankha93 11y ago
  The open web is essentially open because anybody with a computer can create and access content online. The cost to entry is almost nil, be it a big corporation or a small startup or any individual. With Facebook's Internet.org or the "Free Basics" they would be the gatekeepers of defining what the free basic are. It creates a sort of economic divide - why would people people pay to access your site, when a similar big player is providing services on the Facebook's free basic plan?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    How is it better for those people to not have internet at all?
    - Retra 11y ago
      That's not "the Internet" as it is known, but another kind of service. They wouldn't have internet. They'd have something else that could easily be (and probably will be) designed to placate the desire to have internet.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Again: how is that worse than having nothing? And if the argument assumes that they'll eventually have the ability to get full internet, but won't want it at whatever price it costs, then isn't that their choice? If having a free service makes them unwilling to pay for a better service, what's the problem? There's no options being denied here. For anyone that wants, Facebook's offering has only benefits. If someone thinks it has drawbacks, they're free not to use it. I seriously don't see the problem here.
        Retra 11y ago
        It's worse than nothing because 'nothing' doesn't line Facebook's pockets and empower their information monopoly over you.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        So enabling people to access some sites is now evil because it makes people money (which there's no evidence for; who's paying to advertise to people to poor to pay for internet?)
        Retra 11y ago
        Do you honestly think the only way the internet could possibly reach these people is through Facebook? This is not an all vs nothing situation. This is a problem with dozens of different solutions and hundreds of different possible outcomes. Facebook says their plan makes for a just world, and you agree with that because you're both being myopic. Facebook at least has an excuse.
  - m1sta_ 11y ago
    Think of Internet.org as part VC then.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- aravindet 11y ago
  Yes. Internet.org will hand facebook enormous power that would threaten open competition on the public internet, not just on internet.org. Participation on internet.org is subject to approval by Facebook and ISPs. They choose the winners on their platform, not end users. Imagine a world where, say, 20% of users are on internet.org. If you're building a consumer service that benefits from network effects, you must be on internet.org or else you will be eaten up by a competitor who is. Facebook, through its veto over internet.org participation, can now play an outsize role in deciding which consumer internet services get traction and which don’t. App developers will divert resources from building features that users want, into building features that gets them perks from Facebook — probably by pushing more and more user data into the “open” graph. This would not just harm internet.org consumers, it will harm every internet user.
  - briandear 11y ago
    The veto power is the part that makes this whole thing dishonest. Claiming non profit status and presumably taking advantage of tax exemptions in order to boost Facebook's core business? Does anyone else see the conflicts there? Essentially Zuckerberg is trying to use the strategy Carlos Slim used in Mexico with mobile phones: be the only game in town for years by making exclusivity deals with the government and by the time the competition is finally able to compete in a free(er) market, Slim has such a head start as to be unstoppable. Except now Zuck is doing this at a billion scale rather than a Mexico scale. I think the Google balloon internet project has far more value than this. Google wants you to use their services, but at least they are interested in the entire internet for the poor and not just Facebook-y type access.
  - tombrossman 11y ago
    Remember that for some users Facebook effectively is the Internet. They have a normal broadband connection in a relatively affluent western country but spend much of their time online using Facebook for browsing and two-way communication with other Facebook users. On a regular basis I'll hear someone mention 'their website' and when I ask for the URL it is clear from their reply that what they mean is they have a Facebook page for their group/business/whatever. When I press further they seem to understand the concept that owning a domain name and having a 'website' on Facebook are not exactly the same. These are normal users, not stupid people, and this is how perceive things right now. This is anecdotal and I don't have any peer-reviewed studies to cite but I suspect this is pretty common and I wonder if others are seeing the same thing?
headmelted 11y ago
The AOL comparison seems appropriate and is not one I've heard before, good point. I'd argue that this has even darker motivations than AOL ever did though. At least with AOL people had a choice. There were alternatives to living inside the walled garden. This seems more like indentured servitude. I suspect strongly that the poorest people that Facebook is targeting here have no option as they can't afford any data charges at all, so will sign up because its this or nothing. Many of these folks may never have even seen the internet. There's a very real chance that a lot of them will believe that the curated Facebook internet is the internet proper. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg considers himself to be a fair and reasonable gatekeeper so doesn't see this as a problem, but this is almost certainly going to be abused sooner or later (spoiler: sooner).
- anandr2013 11y ago
  I think even if Mark Zuckerberg considers himself to be a fair and reasonable gatekeeper, there is still a problem, as explained by this note on cultural hegemony (https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/net-neutrality-and-hegemony https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/net-neutrality-and-heg...). The marginalised will simply get even more marginalised.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    The problem with gatekeeping is that nobody can be qualified or suitable to fulfill the role of gatekeeper. Focusing on arguments like cultural hegemony is a distraction that gives the impression if enough symptoms are covered-up that the root cause can persist.
    - anandr2013 11y ago
      Right, of course. My point was that even if there is someone who was perfectly qualified to be a gatekeeper, there are still other problems to consider.
zaidf 11y ago
No one doubts that the open web is a good thing. But no where in your entire post do you address the apparent upside of Internet.org: people who wouldn't be able to afford or access the Internet can access at least some parts of it. I think at that point the argument against Internet.org isn't as black and white. You can make an argument that in the long run it might be a bad thing but you have to acknowledge that at least in the near term it is providing some benefit.
- mehrdada 11y ago
  Right, but if you look at the adoption curves of technology, empirically, the long run comes quite quickly, so it is questionable that accelerating technology adoption is worth the long term monopoly leverage it brings. EDIT: this is especially true considering Internet.org, despite its pitch, does not actually bring much to the connectivity infrastructure. It works in places where mobile connectivity infrastructure already exists, just (presumably) not affordable enough. It is purely an economic arbitrage game, not infrastructure development. EDIT2: I also speculate that competition between big players (e.g. Google vs Facebook) will not help resolve the problem either. Since all incumbents benefit from stuff like this, and almost all newcomers lose, big guys have few incentives to break down such paradigms after they are built up (very much like gerrymandering that Democrats and Republicans both like as it benefits them all).
  - xseotheo 11y ago
    You seem to be misinformed regarding infrastructure. Please research facebook's Aquila before posting.
    - skj 11y ago
      This would be a great opportunity to correct any misconceptions that might be present. If not for the op, for all the readers.
    - forgottenpass 11y ago
      I googled it up, and from the dates on news reports, it looks like it's been stuck in "ready for testing" limbo for months and there are zero meaningful specs or details on the drone itself published. I also found Tim Berners-Lee trashing the buisness model, and philanthropist Bill Gates pointing out there are more important problems to solve in the developing world before connectivity. I didn't think I could be more negative on Facebook's shitty internet.org, but now I am. Thanks for encouraging me to do the research!
benevol 11y ago
> Facebook is trying hard to become like AOL in the mid 90s. Total control from soup to nuts. Exactly what the government likes, wants & supports - perfect for mass surveillance. Best case: Single point of access & monopoly situations. Which is why these huge companies will always be treated favorably by the government (despite what it may look like).
zzleeper 11y ago
Wow, I haven't thought of it that way but it makes perfect sense. Almost like a web portal (think Yahoo!) with email, chat, pictures, news on the right side, etc. but under a social aegis
drumdance 11y ago
It's amazing to me how Facebook reinvented the AOL keyword from the outside in.

dayon 11y ago

It's the #1 reason I am boycotting all Facebook products. Zuckerberg is a very bad man.

scrollaway 11y ago
Ignoring hanlon's razor (and its variations) and immediately assuming malice everywhere will prevent you from understanding the problem. You can't fix a problem you do not understand. So please don't just go around throwing "x is a very bad man" unless you have tangible proof, it serves no purpose.
- xorcist 11y ago
  "Bad" doesn't necessarily equate with malice. In Internet discourse it's uncommon that "evil" carries very specific meaning: centralized, separate access to signalling from data, specifications closed or under NDA, gatekeepers for services, potentially rent-seeking. In short, everything that the new TCP/IP landscape brought and many geeks loved at first sight. It's a very silly word, but it's useful, because you can't start every conversation by debating the value of decentralization. That way you can signal that you are not interested in the never ending conversation about emergency services and quality of service, and instead want to focus on what kind of service innovation a network of peers could bring.
- dayon 11y ago
  Which razor is the one where you automatically presume I think the person is intentionally malicious? The black guy in Terminator 2 wasn't being malicious, but he was a very bad man in regards to what he was bringing to the human race. Also, it's impossible to provide tangible proof for any opinion. My opinion is that Zuckerberg is a very bad person, and that is not a personal attack. A personal attack is never an opinion. Rather, personal attacks are when people have the intent of attacking to insult, to hurt, to throw wrenches into arguments, and so on. Hacker News might disagree and appeal to their arbitrary rules about what's right and wrong, but to call my comment that "Zuckerberg is a very bad man" an assumption of malice, an unproven claim, or a personal attack is more of all three against myself than anything.

xseotheo 11y ago

This article is written from the point of view of a tech savvy but it's completely missing empathy. IMHO It completely misses the point. The idea of internet.org as I understand it is not to allow everyone, everywhere to see cat videos. But rather to show people the value of connectivity. Most people that are not connected do not see a value on it. They think it won't help them in any way in their lives, that's a rich kid thing. The idea of the project I believe is to provide a free taste of limited functionality, to open that door to new opportunities. Then decide whether the value is worth it or not, and purchase an internet plan as his/her requirements dictate. It's a sort of "internet" literacy that wants to be spread. Feel free to actually check what the internet.org package offers, and imagine how it can help someone appreciate the value of being connected. Right now due to lack of knowledge people without any access to internet have no idea how their crippling their own future, and their children's future. I believe the idea of internet.org is to provide some sort of basic free services that may help people decide whether full internet connectivity is for them or not, and try to change the "that's a thing only for rich/tech/lazy/young people" mentality that may prevail in rural areas for example. In full disclosure I worked for fb for 1.5 years and haven't worked for them for half a year. These are my personal opinions .

nitrogen 11y ago
I recommend reading the threads from previous discussions (search HN for "internet.org") to find out why people oppose the name and the implementation.
- spicyj 11y ago
  The product was renamed to Free Basics to make its goal clearer.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
chippy 11y ago
You describe your belief of the idea of internet.org really well - it's the same one as most people have. The article spends half of itself describing how this idea is a myth. The article is saying that this Good Idea is, if you look at it, devoid of any humanitarian, charitable and not for profit motives. It's not that the article is missing empathy, it's that the article describes how Internet.org is devoid of empathy.

gamesbrainiac 11y ago

We've had this discussion before. This is merely rebranding and we all know what internet.org is really about. And can we please stop being shocked by any of it? Facebook is a corporation, it is not a charity, it needs to make money since it promised its investors bucketloads of gold. That being said, I feel that these discussions do little other than blame Facebook. What we need is a good alternative that _does_ provide a full internet connection albeit at low speeds to people in developing regions of the world and the only way that I see we can possibly achieve this is to have good legislation. I remember having just a dial up modem, and that was enough for me to move up the social ladder; information can bring about social mobility. Right now, the _value_ of the internet is evident to most people in government, all that we need to do is catalyze the process of making internet a fundamental right in most developing countries, or at least making internet _available_ and _affordable_ to everyone even if that means giving tax cuts to people.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
First of all, mobile Internet user base in India is already growing at 4% every month! And then, there _are_ alternatives. Aircel has launched free data at 64kbps. Airtel has announced cashback scheme for data usage. Mozilla will be launching an ad-subsidized data access plan. All of these are network neutral.
chippy 11y ago
> We've had this discussion before. > Can we please stop being shocked by any of it No. Please do not shut down discussion, anytime. This kills the open internet.

halfcentaur 11y ago

I'm pretty sure most of these counter points are Facebook team accounts. Reasonable short term counterpoints to opposing Internet.org exist —more access and faster. Facebook is leveraging those counter points into a market strategy that undermines one of the central value propositions of the current open internet. It's defensible; it's not all bad. But its not ideal; it is distinctively bad in a serious way. Ideally Facebook would promote access to the open web, rather than undermine it by promoting access to the Facebook version.

zaidf 11y ago
It's defensible; it's not all bad. You're one of the few exceptions to admit that it isn't all bad. Most arguments against internet.org refuse to acknowledge the pros of it and thereby in my view are not objective or honest.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  OTOH, I have found that all of them agree that universal access is important. Haven't seen any one of them saying "the poor people should not get the free data!"
- dayon 11y ago
  When explaining why heroin is bad and should remain illegal, how often do critics point out the drug's pros? Are critics not being objective or honest when they adamantly condemn it? Or, what about when assessing the results of Hitler's reign in Germany? Are historians being dishonest and subjective when they don't bring up the positive consequences of his actions? There are countless other examples. If someone feels very negatively about "Free Basics", I'm not sure why they're not being objective or honest by leaving out potential pros.

aaroninsf 11y ago

Not-really-rhetorical question: how much less contentious would internet.org be, if it were [branded] say... facebook.net? IMO quite a bit. The substantive criticisms would be unchanged; but two accelerants would be removed from the fire: the insinuation that the service 'is' the internet or some substantive subset of it; and that it is a charitable undertaking first and foremost.

ceras 11y ago
IIRC the product is not longer called internet.org anyway; it's now called "free basics."
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  It's still a "project of Internet.org", alongside Facebook's Internet-providing drone things.
newsignup 11y ago
Initially, I had seen people opposing on just that fact "they are misleading people by calling it internet.org", most of them.
fabulist 11y ago
Maybe it would be less contentious, but paying telecom companies to deliver Facebook for free is anticompetative and I'm not a fan of monopolies or monopolizing tactics. In my mind, this is an even bigger issue than their lack of frankness.

supersan 11y ago

Yes, Facebook has had an amazing growth in India in the last year (more than any other country). Facebook connects people and there are a billion people in India so it only makes sense to get them online or better yet get them online while keeping them in a walled garden for as long as possible so they can reap the maximum rewards out of it. Facebook portrays this as a humanitarian effort to bring poor people online (see internet.org ads on YouTube which portrays this as giving people free electricity) but it's only for their own benefit in the long run. It's sad to see that Facebook is trying to kill the same thing which made it what it is. Zuckerberg should wonder what it would be if 20% of India was still using MySpace because they offered it for free in 2009 and didn't give them any option to sign up for Facebook.

peteretep 11y ago
> Facebook portrays this as a humanitarian effort ... > but it's only for their own benefit in the long run. Sounds like every government aid agency ever. Perhaps you should also ask India to start refusing handouts from USAID, DFID, AusAID and so on...?
- fabulist 11y ago
  If the aid they're receiving will ultimately be more harmful than helpful? Yes. It is one thing to be self-interested, and another to be duplicitous.

kenrick95 11y ago

Question: Besides Facebook, what are the apps/sites that are allowed by internet.org's "Free Basics"? I can't find the list at internet.org.

thetruthseeker1 11y ago

The article gives one point of view. The argument seem to imply that, this free internet is worse than no internet at all. I am not sure I buy into that yet. What I do think will be great is if the Govt of India and internet.org can quickly iterate over this plan, see what is working and what is not working and come up with regulations. Mr. Mahesh made a comment about something that Comcast wanted to do was outlawed - which is essentially regulations. I think if India can quickly iterate and regulate with this new internet.org, that might be the solution to the problem.

ChrisNorstrom 11y ago

Once you understand what this is, you realize how disgusting it is. This isn't a charity to "help connect people" nor a fair business exchange. This is It's a land grab on a developing market. A way to break into India early on and establish a monopoly of internet companies (before Indians are able to build theirs). Meaning less competition and nearly no way for India to profitably have its own. Africa's largest social network Mxit already shut down when it couldn't compete with Facebook and Twitter. What chance are home grown indian social networks going to have with Internet.org land grab scheme? In the still-early days of internet at least 3 companies had Free Dial-Up Internet service suplimented with ads. They gave you access to ALL of the internet and simply put an ad banner on the bottom of the screen at all times you were connected. We had Net-Zero (FREE dialup internet with Ads), K-mart Blue-Light (FREE dialup with ads), and Juno (FREE dial up with ads). All three of them went off of the FREE ad based model eventually because it was unsustainable (downloads and Napster required larger and larger amounts of bandwidth). This wouldn't work today due to ad blockers and torrents. Internet.org doesn't even give you access to the whole internet. So the only way for this to pay off is for Facebook and Co to become a monopoly in India. You might not care because it's an American company expanding its influence abroad, but how would you feel if China did the same to us in the USA? And we had no chance of ever developing Facebook?

evilFacebook 11y ago

it's widely accepted that big boys don't play fair but Facebook has set a new standard of LOW the only way (& ambitious) I see is that for all the engineers at Facebook to say NO for this evil project anyone with any sense of decency couldn't possibly agree to be involved in this evil project

EugeneOZ 11y ago

Access to some information is better than no access to information. Some way to communicate is better than no way to communicate.

fabulist 11y ago
Why are you under the impression that people without Internet can't or don't communicate with each other? This is not access to communication or information, it's access to frivolous distraction. Facebook has less bandwidth and more strings than traditional verbal and written communication.
- EugeneOZ 11y ago
  Because when I was young we were having phones, even mobile phones, but first few years - without internet. My mobile site was one of the first mobile sites in Russia. And I know for sure: communication by phones/mail is as different from internet communication, as planet is different with atom. Coordinated networks are MUCH different than list of contacts in phone.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

jld89 11y ago

A partial article but nontheless the point has been made. It seems to me like facebook is being more and more agressive as people are starting to lose interest in the network. And specially as there are more and more competitors that have much more to offer, such as Tsu. I am glad that their monopoly generating idea of internet.org is taking so much flak. I hope it continues, projects like these deserve to die.