4 ms·

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. Th

by 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.

by bko 11y ago

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.