4 ms·

It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value

by mrow84 11y ago

It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value for that group of people over time is less obvious, as they will be incentivised to remain within the Facebook-controlled garden, rather than being free to choose how to direct their time and money. It isn't much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. For some additional perspective, here's a view from India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA

ikeboy 11y ago
In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. If we're worried about long-term effects, but concede there's a gain for everyone short-term, isn't the right thing to do to let them do it now, and if these negative effects materialize, then stop it?
- mrow84 11y ago
  Only Facebook has that level of control over the situation, and their only incentive is to try and make as much money as possible. On a personal level, whilst I don't have strong feelings about the campaign against internet.org, I wouldn't mind if they succeeded. I do have to question why we think net neutrality is so important for us, but not for the poorest in the world. Did you watch the video I linked to? Before watching that I (obviously very naively) hadn't really considered the issue in net neutrality terms, preferring to see it as you appear to, in terms of something-better-than-nothing, but now I'm really not so sure.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I'm against net neutrality, for many of the same reasons I don't have a problem with this Facebook initiative. So any argument of the form "but it's against net neutral" won't work for me.
- briandear 11y ago
  There are still people with AOL email addresses. That migration to better things seems to take a generation while many people will continue to be willingly walled-in just out of habit.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Email in particular is hard to change after you've used it with a number of accounts. That's very different than ISPs.
  - bboreham 11y ago
    AOL email is free (well, ad-supported) now, so people "stuck" with it may have moved to a different ISP.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Tell me, do you recommend this to smokers too? "Nah, just keep smoking, once you have cancer you can still stop." I hope you see the problem with that rationale.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Except smoking is harmful even if only done for a short period of time, while he alleged harm in these services only happens if they're around for a while.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Yes, looks like you don't get the point. The exact opposite is true, this is harmful from the time it get implanted, and the harm only grows with time. Also, just like smoking, once the harm is big enough, there's no easy coming back.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Why is it harmful right away? Right away, you have people getting online who otherwise would not be online at all. The harm is only later, if they end up not getting fully online because they're satisfied. If that happens, and the benefits of internet.org no longer exceed the costs, then would be the time to ban it. How is allowing internet.org now and stopping to allow it if and when it starts causing people to have less internet than they would otherwise (assuming that extra choice is bad here, which I do not concede) a bad thing?
        mannykannot 11y ago
        >...then would be the time to ban it. Right. Once the downsides of smoking were realized, it was quickly brought to an end.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Smoking makes you feel good right away, and in the long term in screws up cell development. The argument is that internet.org gets people some access right away, and in the long term screws up infrastructure development. The negative effects are being caused from day one. You can't just cut the program after five years to keep all the good and prevent the bad.

by mrow84 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. If we're worried about long-term effects, but concede there's a gain for everyone short-term, isn't the right thing to do to let them do it now, and if these negative effects materialize, then stop it?

mrow84 11y ago
Only Facebook has that level of control over the situation, and their only incentive is to try and make as much money as possible. On a personal level, whilst I don't have strong feelings about the campaign against internet.org, I wouldn't mind if they succeeded. I do have to question why we think net neutrality is so important for us, but not for the poorest in the world. Did you watch the video I linked to? Before watching that I (obviously very naively) hadn't really considered the issue in net neutrality terms, preferring to see it as you appear to, in terms of something-better-than-nothing, but now I'm really not so sure.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I'm against net neutrality, for many of the same reasons I don't have a problem with this Facebook initiative. So any argument of the form "but it's against net neutral" won't work for me.
briandear 11y ago
There are still people with AOL email addresses. That migration to better things seems to take a generation while many people will continue to be willingly walled-in just out of habit.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Email in particular is hard to change after you've used it with a number of accounts. That's very different than ISPs.
- bboreham 11y ago
  AOL email is free (well, ad-supported) now, so people "stuck" with it may have moved to a different ISP.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Tell me, do you recommend this to smokers too? "Nah, just keep smoking, once you have cancer you can still stop." I hope you see the problem with that rationale.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Except smoking is harmful even if only done for a short period of time, while he alleged harm in these services only happens if they're around for a while.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Yes, looks like you don't get the point. The exact opposite is true, this is harmful from the time it get implanted, and the harm only grows with time. Also, just like smoking, once the harm is big enough, there's no easy coming back.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Why is it harmful right away? Right away, you have people getting online who otherwise would not be online at all. The harm is only later, if they end up not getting fully online because they're satisfied. If that happens, and the benefits of internet.org no longer exceed the costs, then would be the time to ban it. How is allowing internet.org now and stopping to allow it if and when it starts causing people to have less internet than they would otherwise (assuming that extra choice is bad here, which I do not concede) a bad thing?
      - mannykannot 11y ago
        >...then would be the time to ban it. Right. Once the downsides of smoking were realized, it was quickly brought to an end.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        Smoking makes you feel good right away, and in the long term in screws up cell development. The argument is that internet.org gets people some access right away, and in the long term screws up infrastructure development. The negative effects are being caused from day one. You can't just cut the program after five years to keep all the good and prevent the bad.