3 ms·

Saying "you could have done X, which would help people more than what you're doing now" isn't a condemnation, as people seem to be condemning Facebook for this.

by ikeboy 11y ago

Saying "you could have done X, which would help people more than what you're doing now" isn't a condemnation, as people seem to be condemning Facebook for this. The whole thing is reminding me of http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... How can allowing more people limited internet, where before they had no internet, possibly be a bad thing?

nitrogen 11y ago
It's like giving free soda to the thirsty so they don't seek out something healthier. There is no such thing as limited "internet". If it's limited, it's not the Internet. A more noble implementation of the idea would provide low-bandwidth connectivity to any site (maybe with a browser that only loads text by default). The service could still deliver local ads to pay for the bandwidth.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If you think soda is harmful, and the effects are severe enough, then ban it. But clearly the limited access that Facebook is offering is not harmful in that sense, because it's a subset of the "full" internet that you want them to offer instead. And saying that there's a more noble option they could have done doesn't mean that what they did do is wrong.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    It's harmful because it promotes digital segregation and corporate control. It's about as right as Nestle giving an inadequate supply of free formula to mothers who could otherwise nurse for free[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Organizers of the boycott encourage the practice of newborn nutrition via natural breast milk and claim that use of the substitutes represent a health risk for infants What's the analog to this health risk in the Facebook example? "Digital segregation" is a nice abstract concept, which falls apart when you remember that the people using this have no other way to get internet, so they can't possibly be better off without Facebook.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        It's not enough to compare to the past and present. It's necessary to consider the future. Giving people free Facebook and calling it "internet" might make them a little better off now, but at the expense of the long term. It creates a path dependence issue where the better future of full access to the Internet is less likely to be obtained. This cripples their potential, and hurts others already on the Internet who could benefit from communicating with these newcomers. Consider a utilitarian analogy. Suppose people need to see a benefit of 10 "units" before they are motivated to do something to obtain the benefit. Free Facebook might have a benefit of 6 units, which prevents people from reaching the activation energy to seek out the 15 units of benefit from true Internet access.

by ikeboy 11y ago

nitrogen 11y ago

It's like giving free soda to the thirsty so they don't seek out something healthier. There is no such thing as limited "internet". If it's limited, it's not the Internet. A more noble implementation of the idea would provide low-bandwidth connectivity to any site (maybe with a browser that only loads text by default). The service could still deliver local ads to pay for the bandwidth.

ikeboy 11y ago
If you think soda is harmful, and the effects are severe enough, then ban it. But clearly the limited access that Facebook is offering is not harmful in that sense, because it's a subset of the "full" internet that you want them to offer instead. And saying that there's a more noble option they could have done doesn't mean that what they did do is wrong.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  It's harmful because it promotes digital segregation and corporate control. It's about as right as Nestle giving an inadequate supply of free formula to mothers who could otherwise nurse for free[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >Organizers of the boycott encourage the practice of newborn nutrition via natural breast milk and claim that use of the substitutes represent a health risk for infants What's the analog to this health risk in the Facebook example? "Digital segregation" is a nice abstract concept, which falls apart when you remember that the people using this have no other way to get internet, so they can't possibly be better off without Facebook.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      It's not enough to compare to the past and present. It's necessary to consider the future. Giving people free Facebook and calling it "internet" might make them a little better off now, but at the expense of the long term. It creates a path dependence issue where the better future of full access to the Internet is less likely to be obtained. This cripples their potential, and hurts others already on the Internet who could benefit from communicating with these newcomers. Consider a utilitarian analogy. Suppose people need to see a benefit of 10 "units" before they are motivated to do something to obtain the benefit. Free Facebook might have a benefit of 6 units, which prevents people from reaching the activation energy to seek out the 15 units of benefit from true Internet access.