3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYep. We don't want you to see our elephants and tigers. And the snake charmers.
- Ar-Curunir 11y agoIndia 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.