6 ms·

Nonsense. Facebook is rich enough and powerful enough to MAKE the choice be full-internet or nothing. They and other powerful entities can provide full internet

Nonsense. Facebook is rich enough and powerful enough to MAKE the choice be full-internet or nothing. They and other powerful entities can provide full internet. It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because they want that to be the choice. FaceBook is not some savior here. The ramifications of pushing everyone to FB are also devastating because they would force everyone to get locked in to using FB for everything and then the power imbalance will be extremely serious in the long-term. Even a delay in getting people online is better for the people's interests than locking them into a shitty closed system for the long-term.

prostoalex 11y ago
Facebook is not a carrier. If any carrier chooses to provide full Internet access for free, they may do so. So far they haven't, though. Which is why company-sponsored basic service that's free to the users emerged in the first place.
- Crito 11y ago
  If they truly had altruistic intentions, they damn well could be.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    Sure but what's a solution that's a reasonable compromise until that happens?
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      its not a "reasonable compromise" from the point of view that Facebook is supposedly acting altruistically, this is a 100% self interested power play.
      - prostoalex 11y ago
        Is someone whose wireless Internet budget tops at $0 better off with access to 1 communication tool or 0? (I realize that "unlimited communication tools" is the best answer here, but no one provides it at the budget specified, at least yet).
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        if the plan goes ahead, that could very easily turn into "never provides", via facebook content lockin and strongarming.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Solutions that work when everyone is following their self-interest are better than solutions that require altruism. The most successful anti-poverty program in the history of the world is capitalism.
    - gcb0 11y ago
      that usually comes to bite you later. with only one tv channel/radio station/available free web site to billions of poor, bad politicians can focus much easier on praying them. this worked very well when their only entertainment was religion cults. everything has a consequence that will indirectly affect your ivory tower.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        Your saying I'm in the ivory tower? Bad politicians have already kept a billion Indians out of modernity. Maybe they should give Free Basics a chance before they shut it down to protect their own power, or some ivory tower view that no internet connection is better than a very limited connection that nonetheless connects you with people across the world. If there's an alternative way to expand connectivity, then why doesn't it exist now, or why doesn't someone set it up in competition to Free Basics? No one will use Free Basics if they can get real internet at an affordable price. And your characterization of "one station" is wholly inaccurate. Even if the service included only Facebook (which it doesn't, as anyone can apply to have their web service included in the system), that's millions of profiles and pages with differing opinions, competing products, etc.
    - rdlecler1 11y ago
      There are a lot of assumptions and learning from 200 years of capitalism baked into that remark. The rampant 'success' of capitalism was also a factor leading to communism. Like any good self regulating system it needs mechanisms in place to control it's own greed. Also, altruism is perfectly at home with modern evolutionary theory because it assumes a more enlightened, rather than simple minded, understanding of altruism.
      - 11y ago
- Manishearth 11y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791939 One carrier is already trying this. Also, facebook isn't even financing the actual data (the carriers are), and the carriers' business plan (get people hooked onto the Internet so they migrate to a full plan) works on any form of "free limited internet" plan, where the plan is limited by speed or a data cap instead of by limiting what "Internet" means. Facebook is a third party which has wedged itself into this with extra deals; but the situation from the carriers' point of view shouldn't be much different if they set a free data cap or provide a free slow internet plan.
- bipin_nag 11y ago
  Google has announced free Wi-Fi at 100 railway stations in India. I think it does something similar in other countries (and there is Google Fibre). It is just a start but more sensible than what facebook chose to do. Now this is what I think. Facebook is interested in being a monopoly and this step will ensure its rivals don't get in (because facebook pays for it). This is what all the argument is about. Saying billion people will get free internet is just an eyewash. They don't give you full internet, just the part which serves their interest. Carriers should not control/discrimintate internet access. This should apply to other companies as well.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    Cost structures for providing free WiFi and providing wireless telecom service are completely different though - a telecom ought to procure proper licensing, acquire some spectrum and buy/rent tower space before they earn their first dollar. End of the day it's all about barriers for entry - the barrier to provide free WiFi is relatively low, and one can do it at the cost of an uplink connection and a wireless router. If you find a way to lower the barrier for wireless telecom space, the market forces will take over.
- ecobiker 11y ago
  It's not true that no other carrier is offering free internet. It's a better model with no restrictions. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/aircel-to-offer-free-basic-internet-across-india-in-a-year/articleshow/49380597.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/aircel-to-...
petke 11y ago
I think you are not hearing the point. Given that Facebook is a greedy company (and not a charity), its not going to give away free full internet. So our choice is about allowing, or not allowing, a billion poor people free Facebook access. Its easy for us to say this is no good and it should be stopped because Facebook access is not as good as the full internet. But who are we to deny poor people what little they can get?
- leereeves 11y ago
  It won't be a billion poor people getting free Facebook access. Indians who can afford smartphones and electricity, but not a basic data plan (how many?), will be getting Facebook access at the price of being subjected to advertising, tracking, etc.
  - petke 11y ago
    People are crafty. You dont have to have electricity at home to charge your phone. Its enough there is one power source in the village. (There was a news story about a boy that built a windmill, and the villagers paid him a bit to charge their phones). You dont even need your own phone. You can share or rent one by the minute. Second hand smartphones are getting pretty cheap. 2.8 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. A second hand smart phone might go for 20 dollars. So its a few weeks worth of savings. Imagine all those people getting on Facebook. They will find a way to use it for what they need.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      > 2.8 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. A second hand smart phone might go for 20 dollars. So its a few weeks worth of savings. Ten weeks income, and someone who lives on 2 dollars a day can't afford to save 100% of their income to buy a smartphone. And how much would used smartphone prices increase if a billion people wanted to buy one? Sharing or renting makes more sense, but in that case, why not share the cost of a data plan?
      - 11y ago
throwawaykf05 11y ago
What if I claim you are rich enough to donate to charities of not only your choice, but my choice as well. Will you donate to arbitrary charities that arbitrary people ask you to? Just because you have money does not mean we get to tell you what to do with it. >Even a delay in getting people online is better for the people's interests than locking them into a shitty closed system for the long-term. That's because you have the luxury of having Internet access and are not affected by lack of it. Why don't you let those without any access at all get some access and let them decide whether they want to be locked in or not? Or are you saying you know what they want better then they do?
- thecrazyone 11y ago
  Unfortunately neither does any one if us know what the unconnected want. Let's not pretend we do. So, given that, we're doing what we would've wanted to be done if we were in their position. Locking me into a particular website (or a set of) , especially the one which misuses my personal information is not something i want to be locked into. Hence, we shouldn't stand by silently letting them be locked into "Facebook and partners". Facebook is so asking for it, this time.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    > So, given that, we're doing what we would've wanted to be done if we were in their position. Actually, I'd rather get any connectivity I could get.
- kartan 11y ago
  > What if I claim you are rich enough to donate to charities of not only your choice, but my choice as well. High inequality and mega-rich charity are a related issue. Rich people is not contributing with taxes as they should. If that were the case the states will have more resources to help where help is needed. This was in the news some time ago: "Germany's super-rich have rejected an invitation by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to join their 'Giving Pledge' to give away most of their fortune. The pledge has been criticized in Germany, with millionaires saying donations shouldn't replace duties that would be better carried out by the state." I completely agree with that position. The state, voted by its citizens, should decide not the super-rich even when they have good intentions.
likerofnews 11y ago
> It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because they want that to be the choice. It's Facebook's fault that many Indians can't afford the Internet? Okay...it's also Facebook's fault that there is poverty in the world. You know, poverty that spontaneously started to exist in 2004, when Facebook was founded.
- SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
  Nobody's blaming them for creating poverty, but taking advantage of it to lock people in to their system is another matter.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Where did the OP imply any of that?
thetruthseeker1 11y ago
I think your argument makes no sense. I am all for helping people etc, but just because Facebook is rich by your definition, the poor people are not entitled to its money. FB will do what is needed to promote its self interest and in that process some (supposedly poor) people get some amount of free internet, its not such an evil thing, though, if it turns to be an evil thing in the long run, it could be regulated in the future. I see arguments about net neutraility though, but I dont understand/see the solution, if FB cancels this, there is no free wikipedia to the masses (which is horrible).
- quadrangle 11y ago
  The argument you're imagining makes no sense, but it isn't my argument. My argument isn't that FB has an obligation in our system to provide free internet to people nor is it that rejecting FB here is in every possible respect better. My argument is that FB is lying when they present their motives as being about the interests of the poor citizens.

prostoalex 11y ago

Facebook is not a carrier. If any carrier chooses to provide full Internet access for free, they may do so. So far they haven't, though. Which is why company-sponsored basic service that's free to the users emerged in the first place.

Crito 11y ago
If they truly had altruistic intentions, they damn well could be.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  Sure but what's a solution that's a reasonable compromise until that happens?
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    its not a "reasonable compromise" from the point of view that Facebook is supposedly acting altruistically, this is a 100% self interested power play.
    - prostoalex 11y ago
      Is someone whose wireless Internet budget tops at $0 better off with access to 1 communication tool or 0? (I realize that "unlimited communication tools" is the best answer here, but no one provides it at the budget specified, at least yet).
      - throwaway2048 11y ago
        if the plan goes ahead, that could very easily turn into "never provides", via facebook content lockin and strongarming.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Solutions that work when everyone is following their self-interest are better than solutions that require altruism. The most successful anti-poverty program in the history of the world is capitalism.
  - gcb0 11y ago
    that usually comes to bite you later. with only one tv channel/radio station/available free web site to billions of poor, bad politicians can focus much easier on praying them. this worked very well when their only entertainment was religion cults. everything has a consequence that will indirectly affect your ivory tower.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Your saying I'm in the ivory tower? Bad politicians have already kept a billion Indians out of modernity. Maybe they should give Free Basics a chance before they shut it down to protect their own power, or some ivory tower view that no internet connection is better than a very limited connection that nonetheless connects you with people across the world. If there's an alternative way to expand connectivity, then why doesn't it exist now, or why doesn't someone set it up in competition to Free Basics? No one will use Free Basics if they can get real internet at an affordable price. And your characterization of "one station" is wholly inaccurate. Even if the service included only Facebook (which it doesn't, as anyone can apply to have their web service included in the system), that's millions of profiles and pages with differing opinions, competing products, etc.
  - rdlecler1 11y ago
    There are a lot of assumptions and learning from 200 years of capitalism baked into that remark. The rampant 'success' of capitalism was also a factor leading to communism. Like any good self regulating system it needs mechanisms in place to control it's own greed. Also, altruism is perfectly at home with modern evolutionary theory because it assumes a more enlightened, rather than simple minded, understanding of altruism.
    - 11y ago
Manishearth 11y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791939 One carrier is already trying this. Also, facebook isn't even financing the actual data (the carriers are), and the carriers' business plan (get people hooked onto the Internet so they migrate to a full plan) works on any form of "free limited internet" plan, where the plan is limited by speed or a data cap instead of by limiting what "Internet" means. Facebook is a third party which has wedged itself into this with extra deals; but the situation from the carriers' point of view shouldn't be much different if they set a free data cap or provide a free slow internet plan.
bipin_nag 11y ago
Google has announced free Wi-Fi at 100 railway stations in India. I think it does something similar in other countries (and there is Google Fibre). It is just a start but more sensible than what facebook chose to do. Now this is what I think. Facebook is interested in being a monopoly and this step will ensure its rivals don't get in (because facebook pays for it). This is what all the argument is about. Saying billion people will get free internet is just an eyewash. They don't give you full internet, just the part which serves their interest. Carriers should not control/discrimintate internet access. This should apply to other companies as well.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  Cost structures for providing free WiFi and providing wireless telecom service are completely different though - a telecom ought to procure proper licensing, acquire some spectrum and buy/rent tower space before they earn their first dollar. End of the day it's all about barriers for entry - the barrier to provide free WiFi is relatively low, and one can do it at the cost of an uplink connection and a wireless router. If you find a way to lower the barrier for wireless telecom space, the market forces will take over.
ecobiker 11y ago
It's not true that no other carrier is offering free internet. It's a better model with no restrictions. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/aircel-to-offer-free-basic-internet-across-india-in-a-year/articleshow/49380597.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/aircel-to-...

petke 11y ago

I think you are not hearing the point. Given that Facebook is a greedy company (and not a charity), its not going to give away free full internet. So our choice is about allowing, or not allowing, a billion poor people free Facebook access. Its easy for us to say this is no good and it should be stopped because Facebook access is not as good as the full internet. But who are we to deny poor people what little they can get?

leereeves 11y ago
It won't be a billion poor people getting free Facebook access. Indians who can afford smartphones and electricity, but not a basic data plan (how many?), will be getting Facebook access at the price of being subjected to advertising, tracking, etc.
- petke 11y ago
  People are crafty. You dont have to have electricity at home to charge your phone. Its enough there is one power source in the village. (There was a news story about a boy that built a windmill, and the villagers paid him a bit to charge their phones). You dont even need your own phone. You can share or rent one by the minute. Second hand smartphones are getting pretty cheap. 2.8 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. A second hand smart phone might go for 20 dollars. So its a few weeks worth of savings. Imagine all those people getting on Facebook. They will find a way to use it for what they need.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    > 2.8 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. A second hand smart phone might go for 20 dollars. So its a few weeks worth of savings. Ten weeks income, and someone who lives on 2 dollars a day can't afford to save 100% of their income to buy a smartphone. And how much would used smartphone prices increase if a billion people wanted to buy one? Sharing or renting makes more sense, but in that case, why not share the cost of a data plan?
    - 11y ago

throwawaykf05 11y ago

What if I claim you are rich enough to donate to charities of not only your choice, but my choice as well. Will you donate to arbitrary charities that arbitrary people ask you to? Just because you have money does not mean we get to tell you what to do with it. >Even a delay in getting people online is better for the people's interests than locking them into a shitty closed system for the long-term. That's because you have the luxury of having Internet access and are not affected by lack of it. Why don't you let those without any access at all get some access and let them decide whether they want to be locked in or not? Or are you saying you know what they want better then they do?

thecrazyone 11y ago
Unfortunately neither does any one if us know what the unconnected want. Let's not pretend we do. So, given that, we're doing what we would've wanted to be done if we were in their position. Locking me into a particular website (or a set of) , especially the one which misuses my personal information is not something i want to be locked into. Hence, we shouldn't stand by silently letting them be locked into "Facebook and partners". Facebook is so asking for it, this time.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  > So, given that, we're doing what we would've wanted to be done if we were in their position. Actually, I'd rather get any connectivity I could get.
kartan 11y ago
> What if I claim you are rich enough to donate to charities of not only your choice, but my choice as well. High inequality and mega-rich charity are a related issue. Rich people is not contributing with taxes as they should. If that were the case the states will have more resources to help where help is needed. This was in the news some time ago: "Germany's super-rich have rejected an invitation by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to join their 'Giving Pledge' to give away most of their fortune. The pledge has been criticized in Germany, with millionaires saying donations shouldn't replace duties that would be better carried out by the state." I completely agree with that position. The state, voted by its citizens, should decide not the super-rich even when they have good intentions.

likerofnews 11y ago

> It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because they want that to be the choice. It's Facebook's fault that many Indians can't afford the Internet? Okay...it's also Facebook's fault that there is poverty in the world. You know, poverty that spontaneously started to exist in 2004, when Facebook was founded.

SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
Nobody's blaming them for creating poverty, but taking advantage of it to lock people in to their system is another matter.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Where did the OP imply any of that?

thetruthseeker1 11y ago

I think your argument makes no sense. I am all for helping people etc, but just because Facebook is rich by your definition, the poor people are not entitled to its money. FB will do what is needed to promote its self interest and in that process some (supposedly poor) people get some amount of free internet, its not such an evil thing, though, if it turns to be an evil thing in the long run, it could be regulated in the future. I see arguments about net neutraility though, but I dont understand/see the solution, if FB cancels this, there is no free wikipedia to the masses (which is horrible).

quadrangle 11y ago
The argument you're imagining makes no sense, but it isn't my argument. My argument isn't that FB has an obligation in our system to provide free internet to people nor is it that rejecting FB here is in every possible respect better. My argument is that FB is lying when they present their motives as being about the interests of the poor citizens.