6 ms·

It's odd that the article regards privately owned schools, hospitals, and libraries as absurd abominations. Private schools are a huge part of the American edu

It's odd that the article regards privately owned schools, hospitals, and libraries as absurd abominations. Private schools are a huge part of the American education system, and they're not the problem. Even when the funding is public, lots of jurisdictions in the US are moving toward privately owned schools, i.e. charter schools. The Catholic Church runs private schools around the world and is widely lauded for it. A big portion (most?) of the best American universities are private. 80% of hospitals in the US are private. Private is good. Can someone explain for me how Free Basics would be harmful for anyone? If there's an alternative way to bring full internet connectivity to people who currently can't pay for it, wouldn't that alternative beat Free Basics in the market? The article briefly mentions "public internet access" as an alternative, but the Indian government has already failed the 400 million Indians without electricity, and 1 billion without internet. "The Indian government can probably get the money somewhere" reveals a total misunderstanding of the scale of the problem and places a laughable faith in the Indian government, the incompetence of which is in fact the single largest factor holding India back. Why not give market solutions a chance?

bmmayer1 11y ago
It should be mentioned that currently 40% of Indian children are enrolled in private ("independent") schools, which in turn make up 25% of the K-12 schools in India[1]. The public school system is viewed as such a poor education that demand for private schools is high, and thus can be quite affordable too; as low as $2 per month[2]. Which even in India is within the reach of most families (minimum wage there is ~$225/month). [1] http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/role-of-private-sector-on-K-12-education-in-India/$FILE/EY-role-of-private-sector-on-K-12-education-in-India.pdf http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/role-of-private-sec... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/asia/for-indias-poor-private-schools-help-fill-a-growing-demand.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/asia/for-indias-poor...
- icebraining 11y ago
  There's an interesting Econtalk episode on those schools: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm...
balls187 11y ago
> A big portion (most?) of the best American universities are private. 80% of hospitals in the US are private. Private is good. Mark Zuckerberg's Op/Ed piece[1] specifically makes the case that Free Basic's is valuable likening it to public healthcare, public education, and public libraries. So yes, private good. But private also is private, and not beholden to the public. Free Basics isn't private, though Zuck et al would like it to be accepted and lauded as a public service. [1] http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-...
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Putting aside this particular argument, I'm fascinated by what appears to be Zuckerberg's philosophy of creating profitable business models to provide public goods that are traditionally the realm of governments or charity. When successful, and I don't think they always can be, such solutions seem fundamentally more robust. They don't require continual interest from the donor class or the use of government coercion. And the resulting businesses would have a stronger incentive to spend their money wisely.
  - andreyf 11y ago
    > philosophy of creating profitable business models to provide public goods that are traditionally the realm of governments or charity Unless we're talking about B-corp's [1], such a philosophy is not compatible with the legal responsibility a corporation has to its shareholders. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      I don't think this is true. The B-corp just gives shareholders a cause of action in court against management for not pursuing the social objectives of the company. A corporation is free to pursue any lawful interest. Here is a good article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
firasd 11y ago
Instead of repeating my response I'll link to our previous exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793258 (edit: updated the link) Meanwhile I'll point out that this sort of disdain coupled with a demand that India accept a Faustian bargain ("Who could possibly be against this?", as Zuck says) is exactly what prompts people to think of this perspective as a variation of the "White Man's Burden". I reject the idea that if someone comes up with a plan for a country, upon turning it down the country has to provide an immediate substitute. If I say highly-polluting cars are affordable and will give more people mobility, it doesn't mean opponents have to immediately provide less-polluting cars at the same price.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You've linked one level too deep into the conversation. My arguments about the power of the free market are not limited to India or any particular country. I preach the same for America. The American government is incompetent and is holding back growth.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    The number of dreadful services produced in the free market is amazingly high also. Many organisations do a MUCH worse job than government.
    - roarkjs 11y ago
      But they can and should go out of business
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Except they often don't. Being horrible and abusing people is very profitable. Democratic governments can also be voted "out of business", and the result is more-less the same as with companies: good and evil thrive, what disappears is people and organizations too stupid or too inhibited to game the system.
jacobolus 11y ago
> lots of jurisdictions in the US are moving toward privately owned schools Jurisdictions are moving toward charter schools because their teachers are not unionized, and can therefore be paid less salary and benefits than public school teachers, with the side “benefit” of breaking public schoolteachers unions. Additionally, charter schools help rich white people redirect their tax money away from funding public schools in poor brown neighborhoods. Finally, charter schools are much less regulated w/r/t the salaries they pay their management or the services they purchase from other firms, which makes them a booming profit center, and gives plenty of slush to spend on lobbying, bribes, and PR/marketing. Alternet isn’t the most neutral source, but check out this lengthy piece for a decent rundown of some of the sources of profit in the charter school world: http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/who-profiting-charters...
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  That's an awfully cynical view of it. An alternate narrative is that public school bureaucracies, perverse incentives for teachers unions, and political meddling from government created a system that was failing to offer students a good education. Mix that in with a very American belief in the power of free choice and free markets, as well as a belief that ability to pay should be no barrier to an education, and charter schools are the solution that has emerged. I think there's problems with that narrative too. The impact that good teachers can have on kids from very troubled homes is probably overstated, and teachers unions have often been fighting against performance rating systems that unfairly ignore that. But in defense of charters, a performance rating system that doesn't work won't survive very long in the private sector. Edit: Perhaps a better question, that avoids the nasty politics of the current situation, is: what does the ideal system look like? My inclination is that it would look more like charter schools than like public schools.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobolus 11y ago
zinghaboi 11y ago
Why isn't facebook running this programme in USA? There are 50 million Americans without internet. Although 50 million is not as big as 600 million Indians without internet, it is still bigger than populations of many countries Facebook is running Free Basics in. The Americans without internet are usually old and poor and internet connectivity can do a lot for them. A lot of these people cannot afford the internet. My only question...would Americans think it would be wise to destroy Net Neutrality?? Just asking. Perhaps someone should try and get Facebook to start this in USA.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  According to this http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americ... , only 19% of those without internet (2.8% of the total population) cited cost as a factor. EDIT: I looked further into those numbers (http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-why/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-wh...) and only 6% (not even 1% of the US population) said "too expensive" when asked why they didn't have internet. The other 13% is from those who answered "don't have a computer". So in short, this isn't a problem in the US.
  - himprak 11y ago
    It's not a problem in US doesn't mean the initiative will not be welcomed there. Toll free phone numbers exist and are used extensively in the US, Free Basics can work on similar lines. Obviously, introducing the initiative will raise questions on violation of net neutrality.
xtreaky 11y ago
This could help http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-a...
littletimmy 11y ago
Short answer: we don't want Zuckerberg to be directing the information consumption of a few hundred million people. He isn't trustworthy.
- jqm 11y ago
  I'd argue nobody is that trustworthy.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  A bit late! He's already doing that!!!
cmurf 11y ago
Private is also classist. Either you're already wealthy and the cost doesn't matter; or you're working harder and saving less money for retirement as that money is siphoned off on a kid learning how to be a good worker bee and being socialized. Private schools exist from an aristocratic history. England has this nonsense also. Meanwhile there are countries who take public education seriously and there is essentially no such thing as private education. Look at how Scandinavian countries do this. And the Germans are offering U.S. college students free degrees, many of them stay in Germany. And by and large the education level in these countries is more uniform, where in the U.S. it's again, quite classist. So if you're in favor of feudalism, yeah private school is a great idea. As for Free Basics, I think it's for the users to decide whether it meets their needs or not, but for that to be possible Facebook shouldn't be referring to what they offer as an essential service. Facebook itself is not essential. A full, unabridged Internet connection, is essential. But that's not what's offered. Further, the connection with the user requires dual certificates, so Facebook can see what everyone's doing even if they aren't using Facebook proper - something an ISP doesn't even get to do. The harm is the obfuscation.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Germany has a three tier class system built right into its education system.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    it is not a class system, it's integrating some aspect of meritocracy. It is performance, not wallet based.
    - icelancer 11y ago
      Performance is highly correlated with household income for fairly obvious reasons, regardless of system.
      - cmurf 11y ago
        Of course, but there's a difference between income being relevant yet incidental, and embracing it as a completely appropriate model to relish in.
RodericDay 11y ago
> Can someone explain for me how Free Basics would be harmful for anyone? It makes the entire technological infrastructure of the country grow crooked, relying on a particular corporation as backbone, rather than growing their own.
gone35 11y ago
Why not give market solutions a chance? Because "market solutions" demonstrably fail in the presence of externalities, esp. for public goods. Besides market equilibria are provably intractable in the general case anyway... (Unless P = NP, that is).
- icebraining 11y ago
  Please be specific - which externalities do you see as arising from this model?
xorcist 11y ago
The public/private thing is a red herring. Ownership isn't really central here. Nobody would object if Zuckerberg wanted to give these people Internet access. The question, if we can agree the open network is something desirable, is will this initiative help the population get Internet access sooner or later? My bet would be later, but I am happy to be proven wrong.
bambax 11y ago
Private is one thing; owned by a giant corporation is another. There ane no Exxon schools or Bayer hospitals AFAIK.
pkd 11y ago
The problem with Facebook is that it's trying to invent problems for its solution. It has been my observation that the limited internet accessibility in India is less because of people not being able to afford it (internet is quite cheap, and definitely affordable for anybody who can afford to have a phone capable enough for modern web) but because there is a huge barrier to internet literacy. Most people aren't online because they do not know the benefits of email, search or social networks. And even if they do know the benefits, there's a barrier to learning it. I have many relatives in my family who are well to do but don't know how to use the browser properly. At the same time, a lot of people in the lower income classes don't feel the internet is important enough to invest in the resource to access it, eg web capable phones. Free basics will not provide that section of people any kind of benefit, because it doesn't lower any of those barriers.
pkd 11y ago
As for the public/private debate, at least for schools, I can some points. Indian school system is very different from the US ones. Majority of the schools, both public and private follow curriculum set by either two central boards (CBSE and CISCE) or the individual state boards. In either case, the level of education based on the curriculum is not very different between public and private schools. So many students are now enrolled in private schools solely because the public schools have highly inefficient management with teachers hardly qualified enough to teach to them not turning up at all. The case is entirely opposite in higher education. People swear by public institutes and universities and private institutes (barring a few big ones) are looked down upon because they have historically charged more for a lesser education compared to the highly subsidized and excellently staffed public universities.
- tough_luck 11y ago
  Public schools in India also have teachers with excellent credentials (i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya) but some of them just don't care to teach better. I've done my whole schooling from various KVs across Rajasthan, most of the teachers were actually quite good, but they weren't motivated to innovate and experiment. We were rarely informed about Olympiads, competitions, scholarships etc. Also, management was definitely terrible most of the time.
jsudhams 11y ago
We (Indians) already suffer a lot due to free things provided by government. (Laptop, Cycle, Bus Pass, for students, TV, Mixie, Fan for household) all in public money but labeled as the party that is in power. Now a private company starting this, tomorrow what stop Reliance doing this where they encourage to buy from thier stores across India. Or send Ads of particular party for vote with higher preference? TV and News is already fully controlled by mafia parties. Now internet and next text with whatsapp i think.
thefastlane 11y ago
you've conflated nonprofit and forprofit entities as though they are the same thing, but they're not. there's a world of difference between a private library which is nonprofit (there are lots of those) and one that is owned/controlled by a forprofit corporation.

bmmayer1 11y ago

It should be mentioned that currently 40% of Indian children are enrolled in private ("independent") schools, which in turn make up 25% of the K-12 schools in India[1]. The public school system is viewed as such a poor education that demand for private schools is high, and thus can be quite affordable too; as low as $2 per month[2]. Which even in India is within the reach of most families (minimum wage there is ~$225/month). [1] http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/role-of-private-sector-on-K-12-education-in-India/$FILE/EY-role-of-private-sector-on-K-12-education-in-India.pdf http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/role-of-private-sec... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/asia/for-indias-poor-private-schools-help-fill-a-growing-demand.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/asia/for-indias-poor...

icebraining 11y ago
There's an interesting Econtalk episode on those schools: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm...

balls187 11y ago

> A big portion (most?) of the best American universities are private. 80% of hospitals in the US are private. Private is good. Mark Zuckerberg's Op/Ed piece[1] specifically makes the case that Free Basic's is valuable likening it to public healthcare, public education, and public libraries. So yes, private good. But private also is private, and not beholden to the public. Free Basics isn't private, though Zuck et al would like it to be accepted and lauded as a public service. [1] http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-...

marcoperaza 11y ago
Putting aside this particular argument, I'm fascinated by what appears to be Zuckerberg's philosophy of creating profitable business models to provide public goods that are traditionally the realm of governments or charity. When successful, and I don't think they always can be, such solutions seem fundamentally more robust. They don't require continual interest from the donor class or the use of government coercion. And the resulting businesses would have a stronger incentive to spend their money wisely.
- andreyf 11y ago
  > philosophy of creating profitable business models to provide public goods that are traditionally the realm of governments or charity Unless we're talking about B-corp's [1], such a philosophy is not compatible with the legal responsibility a corporation has to its shareholders. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    I don't think this is true. The B-corp just gives shareholders a cause of action in court against management for not pursuing the social objectives of the company. A corporation is free to pursue any lawful interest. Here is a good article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

firasd 11y ago

Instead of repeating my response I'll link to our previous exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793258 (edit: updated the link) Meanwhile I'll point out that this sort of disdain coupled with a demand that India accept a Faustian bargain ("Who could possibly be against this?", as Zuck says) is exactly what prompts people to think of this perspective as a variation of the "White Man's Burden". I reject the idea that if someone comes up with a plan for a country, upon turning it down the country has to provide an immediate substitute. If I say highly-polluting cars are affordable and will give more people mobility, it doesn't mean opponents have to immediately provide less-polluting cars at the same price.

marcoperaza 11y ago
You've linked one level too deep into the conversation. My arguments about the power of the free market are not limited to India or any particular country. I preach the same for America. The American government is incompetent and is holding back growth.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  The number of dreadful services produced in the free market is amazingly high also. Many organisations do a MUCH worse job than government.
  - roarkjs 11y ago
    But they can and should go out of business
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Except they often don't. Being horrible and abusing people is very profitable. Democratic governments can also be voted "out of business", and the result is more-less the same as with companies: good and evil thrive, what disappears is people and organizations too stupid or too inhibited to game the system.

jacobolus 11y ago

> lots of jurisdictions in the US are moving toward privately owned schools Jurisdictions are moving toward charter schools because their teachers are not unionized, and can therefore be paid less salary and benefits than public school teachers, with the side “benefit” of breaking public schoolteachers unions. Additionally, charter schools help rich white people redirect their tax money away from funding public schools in poor brown neighborhoods. Finally, charter schools are much less regulated w/r/t the salaries they pay their management or the services they purchase from other firms, which makes them a booming profit center, and gives plenty of slush to spend on lobbying, bribes, and PR/marketing. Alternet isn’t the most neutral source, but check out this lengthy piece for a decent rundown of some of the sources of profit in the charter school world: http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/who-profiting-charters...

marcoperaza 11y ago
That's an awfully cynical view of it. An alternate narrative is that public school bureaucracies, perverse incentives for teachers unions, and political meddling from government created a system that was failing to offer students a good education. Mix that in with a very American belief in the power of free choice and free markets, as well as a belief that ability to pay should be no barrier to an education, and charter schools are the solution that has emerged. I think there's problems with that narrative too. The impact that good teachers can have on kids from very troubled homes is probably overstated, and teachers unions have often been fighting against performance rating systems that unfairly ignore that. But in defense of charters, a performance rating system that doesn't work won't survive very long in the private sector. Edit: Perhaps a better question, that avoids the nasty politics of the current situation, is: what does the ideal system look like? My inclination is that it would look more like charter schools than like public schools.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 11y ago

zinghaboi 11y ago

Why isn't facebook running this programme in USA? There are 50 million Americans without internet. Although 50 million is not as big as 600 million Indians without internet, it is still bigger than populations of many countries Facebook is running Free Basics in. The Americans without internet are usually old and poor and internet connectivity can do a lot for them. A lot of these people cannot afford the internet. My only question...would Americans think it would be wise to destroy Net Neutrality?? Just asking. Perhaps someone should try and get Facebook to start this in USA.

marcoperaza 11y ago
According to this http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americ... , only 19% of those without internet (2.8% of the total population) cited cost as a factor. EDIT: I looked further into those numbers (http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-why/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-wh...) and only 6% (not even 1% of the US population) said "too expensive" when asked why they didn't have internet. The other 13% is from those who answered "don't have a computer". So in short, this isn't a problem in the US.
- himprak 11y ago
  It's not a problem in US doesn't mean the initiative will not be welcomed there. Toll free phone numbers exist and are used extensively in the US, Free Basics can work on similar lines. Obviously, introducing the initiative will raise questions on violation of net neutrality.

xtreaky 11y ago

This could help http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-a...

littletimmy 11y ago

Short answer: we don't want Zuckerberg to be directing the information consumption of a few hundred million people. He isn't trustworthy.

jqm 11y ago
I'd argue nobody is that trustworthy.
chris_wot 11y ago
A bit late! He's already doing that!!!

cmurf 11y ago

Private is also classist. Either you're already wealthy and the cost doesn't matter; or you're working harder and saving less money for retirement as that money is siphoned off on a kid learning how to be a good worker bee and being socialized. Private schools exist from an aristocratic history. England has this nonsense also. Meanwhile there are countries who take public education seriously and there is essentially no such thing as private education. Look at how Scandinavian countries do this. And the Germans are offering U.S. college students free degrees, many of them stay in Germany. And by and large the education level in these countries is more uniform, where in the U.S. it's again, quite classist. So if you're in favor of feudalism, yeah private school is a great idea. As for Free Basics, I think it's for the users to decide whether it meets their needs or not, but for that to be possible Facebook shouldn't be referring to what they offer as an essential service. Facebook itself is not essential. A full, unabridged Internet connection, is essential. But that's not what's offered. Further, the connection with the user requires dual certificates, so Facebook can see what everyone's doing even if they aren't using Facebook proper - something an ISP doesn't even get to do. The harm is the obfuscation.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Germany has a three tier class system built right into its education system.
- cmurf 11y ago
  it is not a class system, it's integrating some aspect of meritocracy. It is performance, not wallet based.
  - icelancer 11y ago
    Performance is highly correlated with household income for fairly obvious reasons, regardless of system.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      Of course, but there's a difference between income being relevant yet incidental, and embracing it as a completely appropriate model to relish in.

RodericDay 11y ago

> Can someone explain for me how Free Basics would be harmful for anyone? It makes the entire technological infrastructure of the country grow crooked, relying on a particular corporation as backbone, rather than growing their own.

gone35 11y ago

Why not give market solutions a chance? Because "market solutions" demonstrably fail in the presence of externalities, esp. for public goods. Besides market equilibria are provably intractable in the general case anyway... (Unless P = NP, that is).

icebraining 11y ago
Please be specific - which externalities do you see as arising from this model?

xorcist 11y ago

The public/private thing is a red herring. Ownership isn't really central here. Nobody would object if Zuckerberg wanted to give these people Internet access. The question, if we can agree the open network is something desirable, is will this initiative help the population get Internet access sooner or later? My bet would be later, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

bambax 11y ago

Private is one thing; owned by a giant corporation is another. There ane no Exxon schools or Bayer hospitals AFAIK.

pkd 11y ago

The problem with Facebook is that it's trying to invent problems for its solution. It has been my observation that the limited internet accessibility in India is less because of people not being able to afford it (internet is quite cheap, and definitely affordable for anybody who can afford to have a phone capable enough for modern web) but because there is a huge barrier to internet literacy. Most people aren't online because they do not know the benefits of email, search or social networks. And even if they do know the benefits, there's a barrier to learning it. I have many relatives in my family who are well to do but don't know how to use the browser properly. At the same time, a lot of people in the lower income classes don't feel the internet is important enough to invest in the resource to access it, eg web capable phones. Free basics will not provide that section of people any kind of benefit, because it doesn't lower any of those barriers.

pkd 11y ago

As for the public/private debate, at least for schools, I can some points. Indian school system is very different from the US ones. Majority of the schools, both public and private follow curriculum set by either two central boards (CBSE and CISCE) or the individual state boards. In either case, the level of education based on the curriculum is not very different between public and private schools. So many students are now enrolled in private schools solely because the public schools have highly inefficient management with teachers hardly qualified enough to teach to them not turning up at all. The case is entirely opposite in higher education. People swear by public institutes and universities and private institutes (barring a few big ones) are looked down upon because they have historically charged more for a lesser education compared to the highly subsidized and excellently staffed public universities.

tough_luck 11y ago
Public schools in India also have teachers with excellent credentials (i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya) but some of them just don't care to teach better. I've done my whole schooling from various KVs across Rajasthan, most of the teachers were actually quite good, but they weren't motivated to innovate and experiment. We were rarely informed about Olympiads, competitions, scholarships etc. Also, management was definitely terrible most of the time.

jsudhams 11y ago

We (Indians) already suffer a lot due to free things provided by government. (Laptop, Cycle, Bus Pass, for students, TV, Mixie, Fan for household) all in public money but labeled as the party that is in power. Now a private company starting this, tomorrow what stop Reliance doing this where they encourage to buy from thier stores across India. Or send Ads of particular party for vote with higher preference? TV and News is already fully controlled by mafia parties. Now internet and next text with whatsapp i think.

thefastlane 11y ago

you've conflated nonprofit and forprofit entities as though they are the same thing, but they're not. there's a world of difference between a private library which is nonprofit (there are lots of those) and one that is owned/controlled by a forprofit corporation.