4 ms·
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 fa
by 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 agoIt'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 agoOTOH, 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 agoWhen 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.