4 ms·

Do they have to be? They can be smart enough to rationally weigh the pros and cons here. Really, there aren't any pros of Free Basics when you take into accoun

Do they have to be? They can be smart enough to rationally weigh the pros and cons here. Really, there aren't any pros of Free Basics when you take into account the fact that a similar, net neutral business model can and has been implemented (by Aircel). The details are different (data cap or speed cap instead of walled garden), but the business model is the same -- get people to start using the internet for free in a limited way, and some of them will come to the non-free services. But net neutral. You can basically take Facebook and the walled garden completely out of the picture and it would probably have similar efficacy. Why can Facebook and Zuckerberg support free basics -- when they're not even from India, but these smart Indians cannot oppose it because they're not the target audience?

bko 11y ago
Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians. They're essentially deciding the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality). Their words and beliefs bare no cost but will be involuntarily paid for by others. The pros are that its a service that people have a choice to use so if a customer freely chooses to do so, that person is obviously off. If you, or Aircel, want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so. A different model that you feel is more effective is not an argument to restrict another competing model.
- chdir 11y ago
  > elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians What's you definition of elite ? There's a very diverse background of people who have spoken against "Free Basics". Also keep in mind, that your average Joe won't even bother to read the fine print about the pros/cons of "Free Basics". So in a way, you have to depend on someone with a keen interest to voice an opinion.
  - bko 11y ago
    I didn't mean "elite" as a slight, but rather as a generalization of those that are speaking out against a service that they will likely never use. It's as though I find something distasteful and I don't personally benefit from it so I favor banning it. It is no cost to me since I don't personally benefit from the product or service. This type of attitude leads to the social acceptance of a lot of censorship (e.g. vulgar material, I have nothing to hide, etc). I believe the keen interest lies with those that are going to potentially use the service. These "elites" don't know the people that could potentially use this service. They don't know their values, their circumstances, or anything about them. It is presumptuous to think that those outside groups somehow know whats best and can choose for those being forced to forgo the service what sacrifice they should make for their ideals
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    If someone is willing to agree to a contract without fully understanding it, why should we be concerned unless they are clearly mentally disabled and being taken advantage of? If someone wants to smoke tobacco or pot, why should I get any say in the matter?
- Manishearth 11y ago
  > Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians. And it's not internet colonialism for Facebook to swoop down, decide what Indians need, and take over their internet? In fact, I've seen many well informed arguments from the so-called "elites" with numbers about internet adoption and _why_ the Internet isn't used much in India. I've seen none of this from Facebook; which has just assumed that India is full of clueless poor people. For example, if you look at the costs of mobile data in India, the cost of a smartphone that supports the modern web (enough for sites like, say, Facebook to be usable) is more than the cost of data for a year or two. Most of the people Free Basics "helped" already were able to get internet. Folks are jumping onto it because it's free (and "free" has its own charm "If it's free, why not?"). There may also be people who already had internet switching to the free thing since they mostly use Facebook/Whatsapp/etc. And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach. You see a bunch of elites pushing back a philanthrophic company trying to help the poor. We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited. (On a side note, a lot of students who came from poverty are on the side of the "elites", but this is anecdotal) > the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality) I already said that there are net neutral ways of doing the same thing. It's not a sacrifice. You're making the same non sequitur the article says that Zuckerberg is -- saying no to Free Basics is not the same as saying no to. net neutrality isn't even the only ideal involved here. Privacy is. You know, that thing the West is so crazy about right now? Free Basics is structured as a massive MITM. Facebook is in the business of data, and we can't trust them to not exploit the MITM. Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor? Even though, I reiterate, there are multiple models which have worked which provide internet to the poor without any of this crap? You're asking us to roll over and accept whatever we get because poor people. If you're from the West (many of the folks making this kind of argument are), that's way more elitist. > want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so The internet, as Zuck himself is saying, is a public good and need. You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them. An example is what's happened to the cost of higher education in the US.
- pinkunicorn 11y ago
  No its not about classist opinion. I'll tell you how it'll go. You would probably as a way of casual conversation(in What's App or FB messenger) , mention that it would be nice if you bought an Air Conditioner. Now, normally FB won't(hopefully) read those messages because of its privacy policy. Take free basics now, they're explicitly static that they can decrypt traffic. So now that you've mentioned an Air Conditioner, FB will start showing ads the next day saying "Air Conditioners at a discounted price". You get influenced and buy it(remember, you did not impulsively go to a shop and seek to buy one, you just mentioned it as a way of casual conversation). Do you see where its going? That's one part of the problem. The rest is already summarized nicely by IIT professors.
- wfo 11y ago
  When people are desperate for something they don't have they'll accept any deal to get it, no matter how bad. It's not classist, it's necessary to have as many people as possible consider this deal for them since if it's as bad a deal as everyone who isn't facebook is saying it is, then it's just Facebook exploiting the desperation of a huge poor population for profit which obviously shouldn't be allowed to happen. Elites in our country have decided slavery should be banned, no matter what. Who are they to say a starving poor man can't sell himself into slavery in exchange for food for his family? How classist.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It is one thing to say that such an offering is not in the poor's best long term interest. It is another to oppose it in such a way that hurts the poor's chance of even having a choice. If is the difference between saying that smoking at 18 is bad and pushing a ban on selling cigarettes to adults who are considered too young. By all means, inform me. But do not take my freedom from me, even if it is in my best interest. For example, I strongly oppose bans on selling cigarettes to young adults even though I have never smoked and I hate smoking. I love the advice of how it is bad for you, but I love having the freedom to choose not to smoke instead of having it forced upon me. But, I also realize it isn't this simple, as you have the other side using very underhanded if not outright illegal means to push what is in their best benefit. Personally this leads to me being at a moral impasse, because while I love the freedom to choose things that are less than beneficial for me, I realize that applied at large this causes major problems and I personally cannot hand wave it all away by saying they are adults responsible for their own choices (I honestly don't draw a major distinction between adults and children in this regard). I dislike Zuckerberg for being deceitful as to the goals of this 'charity'. But I also dislike those who want to remove choices, even those that are not in my favor.
- Manishearth 11y ago
  As I've mentioned elsewhere, Free Basics isn't the only offering that solves the problem. There are other options, and other models which have worked which Free Basics could adopt instead. From that point of view, there are things which are strictly better than free basics which address these concerns (and net neutrality affects everyone, it's not just the "choice" of the people using Free Basics). If these other models didn't exist there would probably be a weaker opposition to Free Basics. I'd mostly be on the fence -- preferring that net neutrality wasn't affected, but still supporting (or, not opposing) Free Basics since it's an IMO net gain. But these other options do exist. What if there was a way to get the stress relief and other effects of smoking in a perfectly healthy and otherwise equivalent way? Would you ban cigarette smoking then? This "safe smoke" is not inferior to regular smoking according to smokers. It feels the exact same and has the exact same effect. If this exists, why allow cigarettes to exist? Okay, maybe you still want that choice. What if secondhand smoke was a much larger danger than it is now, and if a sizeable chunk of people start smoking, a lot of other people may get cancer just by sharing the same streets? In that case, would you allow it? It's the same situation here.

bko 11y ago

Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians. They're essentially deciding the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality). Their words and beliefs bare no cost but will be involuntarily paid for by others. The pros are that its a service that people have a choice to use so if a customer freely chooses to do so, that person is obviously off. If you, or Aircel, want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so. A different model that you feel is more effective is not an argument to restrict another competing model.

chdir 11y ago
> elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians What's you definition of elite ? There's a very diverse background of people who have spoken against "Free Basics". Also keep in mind, that your average Joe won't even bother to read the fine print about the pros/cons of "Free Basics". So in a way, you have to depend on someone with a keen interest to voice an opinion.
- bko 11y ago
  I didn't mean "elite" as a slight, but rather as a generalization of those that are speaking out against a service that they will likely never use. It's as though I find something distasteful and I don't personally benefit from it so I favor banning it. It is no cost to me since I don't personally benefit from the product or service. This type of attitude leads to the social acceptance of a lot of censorship (e.g. vulgar material, I have nothing to hide, etc). I believe the keen interest lies with those that are going to potentially use the service. These "elites" don't know the people that could potentially use this service. They don't know their values, their circumstances, or anything about them. It is presumptuous to think that those outside groups somehow know whats best and can choose for those being forced to forgo the service what sacrifice they should make for their ideals
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  If someone is willing to agree to a contract without fully understanding it, why should we be concerned unless they are clearly mentally disabled and being taken advantage of? If someone wants to smoke tobacco or pot, why should I get any say in the matter?
Manishearth 11y ago
> Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians. And it's not internet colonialism for Facebook to swoop down, decide what Indians need, and take over their internet? In fact, I've seen many well informed arguments from the so-called "elites" with numbers about internet adoption and _why_ the Internet isn't used much in India. I've seen none of this from Facebook; which has just assumed that India is full of clueless poor people. For example, if you look at the costs of mobile data in India, the cost of a smartphone that supports the modern web (enough for sites like, say, Facebook to be usable) is more than the cost of data for a year or two. Most of the people Free Basics "helped" already were able to get internet. Folks are jumping onto it because it's free (and "free" has its own charm "If it's free, why not?"). There may also be people who already had internet switching to the free thing since they mostly use Facebook/Whatsapp/etc. And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach. You see a bunch of elites pushing back a philanthrophic company trying to help the poor. We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited. (On a side note, a lot of students who came from poverty are on the side of the "elites", but this is anecdotal) > the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality) I already said that there are net neutral ways of doing the same thing. It's not a sacrifice. You're making the same non sequitur the article says that Zuckerberg is -- saying no to Free Basics is not the same as saying no to. net neutrality isn't even the only ideal involved here. Privacy is. You know, that thing the West is so crazy about right now? Free Basics is structured as a massive MITM. Facebook is in the business of data, and we can't trust them to not exploit the MITM. Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor? Even though, I reiterate, there are multiple models which have worked which provide internet to the poor without any of this crap? You're asking us to roll over and accept whatever we get because poor people. If you're from the West (many of the folks making this kind of argument are), that's way more elitist. > want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so The internet, as Zuck himself is saying, is a public good and need. You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them. An example is what's happened to the cost of higher education in the US.
pinkunicorn 11y ago
No its not about classist opinion. I'll tell you how it'll go. You would probably as a way of casual conversation(in What's App or FB messenger) , mention that it would be nice if you bought an Air Conditioner. Now, normally FB won't(hopefully) read those messages because of its privacy policy. Take free basics now, they're explicitly static that they can decrypt traffic. So now that you've mentioned an Air Conditioner, FB will start showing ads the next day saying "Air Conditioners at a discounted price". You get influenced and buy it(remember, you did not impulsively go to a shop and seek to buy one, you just mentioned it as a way of casual conversation). Do you see where its going? That's one part of the problem. The rest is already summarized nicely by IIT professors.
wfo 11y ago
When people are desperate for something they don't have they'll accept any deal to get it, no matter how bad. It's not classist, it's necessary to have as many people as possible consider this deal for them since if it's as bad a deal as everyone who isn't facebook is saying it is, then it's just Facebook exploiting the desperation of a huge poor population for profit which obviously shouldn't be allowed to happen. Elites in our country have decided slavery should be banned, no matter what. Who are they to say a starving poor man can't sell himself into slavery in exchange for food for his family? How classist.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

It is one thing to say that such an offering is not in the poor's best long term interest. It is another to oppose it in such a way that hurts the poor's chance of even having a choice. If is the difference between saying that smoking at 18 is bad and pushing a ban on selling cigarettes to adults who are considered too young. By all means, inform me. But do not take my freedom from me, even if it is in my best interest. For example, I strongly oppose bans on selling cigarettes to young adults even though I have never smoked and I hate smoking. I love the advice of how it is bad for you, but I love having the freedom to choose not to smoke instead of having it forced upon me. But, I also realize it isn't this simple, as you have the other side using very underhanded if not outright illegal means to push what is in their best benefit. Personally this leads to me being at a moral impasse, because while I love the freedom to choose things that are less than beneficial for me, I realize that applied at large this causes major problems and I personally cannot hand wave it all away by saying they are adults responsible for their own choices (I honestly don't draw a major distinction between adults and children in this regard). I dislike Zuckerberg for being deceitful as to the goals of this 'charity'. But I also dislike those who want to remove choices, even those that are not in my favor.

Manishearth 11y ago
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Free Basics isn't the only offering that solves the problem. There are other options, and other models which have worked which Free Basics could adopt instead. From that point of view, there are things which are strictly better than free basics which address these concerns (and net neutrality affects everyone, it's not just the "choice" of the people using Free Basics). If these other models didn't exist there would probably be a weaker opposition to Free Basics. I'd mostly be on the fence -- preferring that net neutrality wasn't affected, but still supporting (or, not opposing) Free Basics since it's an IMO net gain. But these other options do exist. What if there was a way to get the stress relief and other effects of smoking in a perfectly healthy and otherwise equivalent way? Would you ban cigarette smoking then? This "safe smoke" is not inferior to regular smoking according to smokers. It feels the exact same and has the exact same effect. If this exists, why allow cigarettes to exist? Okay, maybe you still want that choice. What if secondhand smoke was a much larger danger than it is now, and if a sizeable chunk of people start smoking, a lot of other people may get cancer just by sharing the same streets? In that case, would you allow it? It's the same situation here.