4 ms·

>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 hind

by 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
  I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!) There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN. Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case. > The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread." It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing. While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is "Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan." "Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don't like." Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship? "They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.' Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism. > [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work. Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them. You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the "but there's no perfect information" memes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by fwn 11y ago

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
I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!) There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN. Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case. > The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread." It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing. While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is "Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan." "Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don't like." Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship? "They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.' Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism. > [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work. Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them. You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the "but there's no perfect information" memes.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]