4 ms·

There are people who do not have access even to the walled gardens of 25 years ago. This link is a response by Facebook to criticisms of Free Basics - https://

There are people who do not have access even to the walled gardens of 25 years ago. This link is a response by Facebook to criticisms of Free Basics - https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponents/ https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponen... I don't understand why no progress is better than some progress. This initiative is not meant for people already connected to the internet.

pdkl95 11y ago
The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading Facebook's propaganda is pushing. The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries. It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.
- fwn 11y ago
  >The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's faulty. Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet. Those people are not spectacularly different from us. By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > anti-free-basics mindset Ahh, the usual attempt to create factions. > Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. Yes, other providers already exist (removing any need for "free basics"), which is why Facebook is abusing their position as a social network to manipulate people into supporting their plan. They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man. > And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. If you read any of the other threads on this topic, you will find examples Facebook's tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". That is their existing power as a social gatekeeper. The entire point of this new plan is to extend their gatekeeper position into one of the largest untapped markets on the planet. Without even considering how this position would allow Facebook to monopolize the market, their power as a gatekeeper to monitor social interaction (why do you think they MitM encryption?) and manipulate public opinion is so powerful it should be seen as a threat to national sovereignty. You probably think this is hyperbole, but I'm deadly serious. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the end game of this power to use friends against each other already exists in China under the name Sesame Credit. I recommend watching this short video[1] about it by Extra Credits. Their perspective as game designers about how people can be manipulated with the mechanics of a platform is key to understanding how these new powers work. > anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy. (minor suggestion: it's customary to note when you edit a post) It only looks sloppy if you only focus on the narrow framing Facebook is pushing in their propaganda. If you consider the last few hundred years of history and the recent-ish trends in political and social power, Facebook's power grab is obvious. One of the problems with your analysis, I suspect, is that you seem to be assuming that some sort of market solution will sort itself out. This is an obvious fallacy: "the market will fix things" is not a law of nature, people are not in any way "rational" in the way economists use the term ("homo economicus" doesn't exist), and the very idea of a market only works if-and-only-if consumers have accurate information, which is exactly what Facebook is manipulating. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI
    - fwn 11y ago
cmurf 11y ago
That's a false choice. It's getting Internet access slowly, on locals' terms vs getting Facebook access soon, on Facebook's terms. And those Facebook terms include full blown surveillance. And labeling this extremely limited ecosystem as the Internet, or as essential service is factually incorrect.

pdkl95 11y ago

The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading Facebook's propaganda is pushing. The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries. It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.

fwn 11y ago
>The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's faulty. Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet. Those people are not spectacularly different from us. By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > anti-free-basics mindset Ahh, the usual attempt to create factions. > Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. Yes, other providers already exist (removing any need for "free basics"), which is why Facebook is abusing their position as a social network to manipulate people into supporting their plan. They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man. > And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. If you read any of the other threads on this topic, you will find examples Facebook's tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". That is their existing power as a social gatekeeper. The entire point of this new plan is to extend their gatekeeper position into one of the largest untapped markets on the planet. Without even considering how this position would allow Facebook to monopolize the market, their power as a gatekeeper to monitor social interaction (why do you think they MitM encryption?) and manipulate public opinion is so powerful it should be seen as a threat to national sovereignty. You probably think this is hyperbole, but I'm deadly serious. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the end game of this power to use friends against each other already exists in China under the name Sesame Credit. I recommend watching this short video[1] about it by Extra Credits. Their perspective as game designers about how people can be manipulated with the mechanics of a platform is key to understanding how these new powers work. > anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy. (minor suggestion: it's customary to note when you edit a post) It only looks sloppy if you only focus on the narrow framing Facebook is pushing in their propaganda. If you consider the last few hundred years of history and the recent-ish trends in political and social power, Facebook's power grab is obvious. One of the problems with your analysis, I suspect, is that you seem to be assuming that some sort of market solution will sort itself out. This is an obvious fallacy: "the market will fix things" is not a law of nature, people are not in any way "rational" in the way economists use the term ("homo economicus" doesn't exist), and the very idea of a market only works if-and-only-if consumers have accurate information, which is exactly what Facebook is manipulating. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI
  - fwn 11y ago

cmurf 11y ago

That's a false choice. It's getting Internet access slowly, on locals' terms vs getting Facebook access soon, on Facebook's terms. And those Facebook terms include full blown surveillance. And labeling this extremely limited ecosystem as the Internet, or as essential service is factually incorrect.