3 ms·

I'd rather not have Western companies filter what Indians can and cannot have under the assumption that India is too poor or backwards to get its shit done.

Jonanin 11y ago
That isn't anyone's assumption. These people are too underprivileged to know or care about your "walled gardens" and "ecosystems". It's supposed to be a good enough intermediate step to drastically improve the poor's access to information. Yes, it's good for Facebook, obviously, but this is not a zero sum game. The choice to use any better competing service that comes along will always exist. No one else is willing to front the hundreds of millions with little to no returns for 20+ years required, though.
- firasd 11y ago
  Just to be clear, Free Basics runs on top of existing mobile internet providers. It’s just free access to Facebook plus a few handpicked websites.
- Ar-Curunir 11y ago
  No, this is precisely digital imperialism. Being underprivileged does NOT mean that these people should not have privacy and security. Currently, for lots of phones still used in India, using internet.org means NO HTTPS. So FB (and any other eavesdropping party) gets to snoop on your data and browsing habits. It's not about a walled garden, it's about basic human rights. The last time the West tried to save backwards people, they stole and murdered and raped their way to wealth. We don't need any more generosity from the West.
peteretep 11y ago
> under the assumption that India is too poor or > backwards to get its shit done Perhaps until it does "get its shit done" that assumption would appear to hold? I have often wondered what the middle-class Indian dudes who are trying to block their country men from getting Facebook and Wikipedia access are really scared of. Could it just be they're worried about how it looks?
- abhaga 11y ago
  Yep. We don't want you to see our elephants and tigers. And the snake charmers.
- Ar-Curunir 11y ago
  India is certainly trying, and we've improved greatly in this regard. I don't think the West should get to decide what the rest of the world can and cannot see. Under the current internet.org setup, HTTPS does not work on feature phones, which are still a HUGE market in India. So by using internet.org, fb gets to see in plain all communication between a user and the website. Furthermore, anybody eavesdropping on this connection can also see this data. So basically in exchange for free internet, Indians lose security and privacy. Just because these people are poor does not mean that they don't deserve these rights. Somehow, I don't trust fb to act benevolently in this situation when they'll have so much data ready to use. Great quote from Desmond Tutu: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." The last time the West claimed to be helping spread enlightenment to uncivilized people, they colonized them and stole their resources and livelihoods. Fuck that, it's not happening again.

Jonanin 11y ago

That isn't anyone's assumption. These people are too underprivileged to know or care about your "walled gardens" and "ecosystems". It's supposed to be a good enough intermediate step to drastically improve the poor's access to information. Yes, it's good for Facebook, obviously, but this is not a zero sum game. The choice to use any better competing service that comes along will always exist. No one else is willing to front the hundreds of millions with little to no returns for 20+ years required, though.

firasd 11y ago
Just to be clear, Free Basics runs on top of existing mobile internet providers. It’s just free access to Facebook plus a few handpicked websites.
Ar-Curunir 11y ago
No, this is precisely digital imperialism. Being underprivileged does NOT mean that these people should not have privacy and security. Currently, for lots of phones still used in India, using internet.org means NO HTTPS. So FB (and any other eavesdropping party) gets to snoop on your data and browsing habits. It's not about a walled garden, it's about basic human rights. The last time the West tried to save backwards people, they stole and murdered and raped their way to wealth. We don't need any more generosity from the West.

peteretep 11y ago

> under the assumption that India is too poor or > backwards to get its shit done Perhaps until it does "get its shit done" that assumption would appear to hold? I have often wondered what the middle-class Indian dudes who are trying to block their country men from getting Facebook and Wikipedia access are really scared of. Could it just be they're worried about how it looks?

abhaga 11y ago
Yep. We don't want you to see our elephants and tigers. And the snake charmers.
Ar-Curunir 11y ago
India is certainly trying, and we've improved greatly in this regard. I don't think the West should get to decide what the rest of the world can and cannot see. Under the current internet.org setup, HTTPS does not work on feature phones, which are still a HUGE market in India. So by using internet.org, fb gets to see in plain all communication between a user and the website. Furthermore, anybody eavesdropping on this connection can also see this data. So basically in exchange for free internet, Indians lose security and privacy. Just because these people are poor does not mean that they don't deserve these rights. Somehow, I don't trust fb to act benevolently in this situation when they'll have so much data ready to use. Great quote from Desmond Tutu: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." The last time the West claimed to be helping spread enlightenment to uncivilized people, they colonized them and stole their resources and livelihoods. Fuck that, it's not happening again.