3 ms·
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 en
by 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 agoJust 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 agoNo, 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.