4 ms·

In the very short run, they will be worse off. In about a year or two, they will have access to the Internet anyway (see below). If internet.org is not allowed

In the very short run, they will be worse off. In about a year or two, they will have access to the Internet anyway (see below). If internet.org is not allowed to violate net neutrality, they will come online to a better, more open Internet. I oppose internet.org due to the permanent damage that it will cause to the Internet itself. Please see my earlier comment for how this will happen. Internet.org probably won't shut down even if strong net neutrality is legislated in India; they would merely change their program to be compliant, by using a data cap on free (beer and freedom) internet use. The cost for ISPs are the same in either scenario. The fiction about internet.org being "cheaper" to provide than the open Internet doesn’t hold water. Internet growth in India: 20% of Indians have Internet access today, a number that has grown at 30% annually for the last five years. Mobile phone use grew from 20% to 75% in five years, so it is likely that Internet use would also get there by 2019 without internet.org.

peteretep 11y ago
Largely it's rich Indians trying to block poorer Indians from having access to shiny things on specious moral grounds. Just who the hell are you to deny your poorer countrymen free access, based on your personal beliefs from a position of pure privilege? Would you give up your internet access for the same cause? No, I didn't think so.
- mehrdada 11y ago
  That is an interesting characterization of the situation. I would be more inclined to agree with you about X denying something to Y if Y had asked for it in the first place. However, in this case, I have heard Zuck himself saying numerous times that one issue with poorer countries is that they don't really know what internet is and they don't feel the need to pay to use it in the first place. It is hard to portray that as denial of connectivity to a certain set of people. They never asked for it. This is probably a bad analogy, but I see it more like a drug dealer luring away users for free, and some public organizations trying to ban that behavior.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    That analogy only works if you think that internet in the Facebook version is actively harmful.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Suggesting it's ok to deny someone access to the Internet because they don't know what it has roughly the same moral weight as denying someone access to antibiotics because they don't know what they are.
- ragnarok451 11y ago
  Actually rich Indians are pretty happy about Internet.org - internet access makes it much easier for them to get propaganda out to poor villagers, thereby solidifying their power base. I think that poster makes a solid point about the integrity of the internet itself, though.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    In a country where ~25% of the population live on under $1.25 a day, it doesn't take very much to be comparatively rich.

peteretep 11y ago

Largely it's rich Indians trying to block poorer Indians from having access to shiny things on specious moral grounds. Just who the hell are you to deny your poorer countrymen free access, based on your personal beliefs from a position of pure privilege? Would you give up your internet access for the same cause? No, I didn't think so.

mehrdada 11y ago
That is an interesting characterization of the situation. I would be more inclined to agree with you about X denying something to Y if Y had asked for it in the first place. However, in this case, I have heard Zuck himself saying numerous times that one issue with poorer countries is that they don't really know what internet is and they don't feel the need to pay to use it in the first place. It is hard to portray that as denial of connectivity to a certain set of people. They never asked for it. This is probably a bad analogy, but I see it more like a drug dealer luring away users for free, and some public organizations trying to ban that behavior.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  That analogy only works if you think that internet in the Facebook version is actively harmful.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Suggesting it's ok to deny someone access to the Internet because they don't know what it has roughly the same moral weight as denying someone access to antibiotics because they don't know what they are.
ragnarok451 11y ago
Actually rich Indians are pretty happy about Internet.org - internet access makes it much easier for them to get propaganda out to poor villagers, thereby solidifying their power base. I think that poster makes a solid point about the integrity of the internet itself, though.
- peteretep 11y ago
  In a country where ~25% of the population live on under $1.25 a day, it doesn't take very much to be comparatively rich.