3 ms·

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 se

by 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 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.