6 ms·

I don't understand how Mark could propose this with a straight face when he himself is a proponent against Comcast and others trying to do a similar thing in th

by yalogin 11y ago

I don't understand how Mark could propose this with a straight face when he himself is a proponent against Comcast and others trying to do a similar thing in the US. Does not matter if its free or not (there is no such thing as free btw). As long as he gets his own ad dollars he is fine with carving out a special "internet path" to his users. Bad. Worse still, he is doing this piggy backing on "helping the poor" story. Now I wonder how free and open his other internet through blimps idea was, that was floated a while ago.

pbalau 11y ago
Let me ask you a question: the Free Basics is targeted to people that can't afford another way to get internet. What will showing ads to these people accomplish?
- yalogin 11y ago
  Ad dollars were the wrong choice of words, its more gaining mind share and users. So do you really believe FB did it for the good of the people and that this free basics thing is good? What do you think a poor guy without access to proper resources like food, education will gain by sharing likes on FB?
  - samfisher83 11y ago
    Obviously facebook is motivated by ad dollars, but people get some benefit out of it. Maybe that poor guy will see some image that makes him laugh.
    - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
      I don't think access to cat pictures justifies shitting all over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure just to provide a profitable but censored service we'd never accept ourselves. Net neutrality was the last bastion of freedom online, but it's somehow too high of a standard for societies with lower rates of internet access?
      - mkagenius 11y ago
        > pictures justifies shitting all over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure If you rely on government to build free internet access infrastructure for poor people, it could take long time. While on the other hand, fb has managed to build something and convinced telcos to give it for free to poor and promised that they will soon see those people converting into a full-internet user and will pay you the normal rate. So, actually the grand plan is to get them to use full internet, which is not bad for either parties I think.
        fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        Where in FB business plan does it say that they'll invest all of that money to provide a locked-in service just to make it easier and cheaper for people to move from that service to one that doesn't prioritize FB content over their competitors'? I don't see that anywhere. It's almost as if there is a lot of money in getting a class of people to think FB is the internet by cutting off any real initiative for full internet access.
      - hellbanner 11y ago
        Speaking of shitting over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure, have you read http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452287081 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452287081 Confessions of an Economic Hitman? It's all about the USA doing exactly that, by promising massive GDP gains. When they fail to net the profit required to pay the contractors, the contractors take over the infrastructure -- netting the USA dozens of corporate-owned electrical infrastructure all over the world, chiefly South America & the Middle East (!!)
        fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        I picked that up a few months ago but haven't had the time (management skills) to start it yet.
- ProAm 11y ago
  indoctrination
- roymurdock 11y ago
  How many people do you know that have ever purchased anything from a Facebook ad or clicked on one other than by accident? Ads are increasingly about product placement, brand presence and being top of mind. Especially when you can be sure that 80% of your clickthroughs on Facebook are from some bot network that Facebook doesn't bother to crack down on because it adds to their userbase metric, which is what the derive such a high valuation from. [1] I'm sure coke, nestle, and other branded basic commodities (food, drink, clothing) would love a way to show ads to this low-income segment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag
- danohuiginn 11y ago
  Network effects. Even if these people don't have cash, their presence on facebook may encourage wealthier friends/relatives to participate more. [and even poor people may be advertising targets, for the right customer. Loan sharks? Political parties? Religious groups?]
samfisher83 11y ago
You are free not to use it if you want. You can pay for the internet. I wonder what people who actually use the service think. I remember using netzero. You had to view ads for that.
- pkd 11y ago
  Most of the people who will actually end up using the service will be middle class people who can afford to pay for the internet and have been doing so but want to take it for a spin and see how it feels. The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it.
  - monort 11y ago
    Egypt’s mobile penetration is over 100%, poor have mobile phones that can access internet.
    - pkd 11y ago
      How does mobile penetration relate to the type of devices the people are using? India has almost 80% mobile penetration, but less than half of that is using smart/multimedia enabled phones. I'd estimate that Egypt's condition won't be vastly different considering the similarities between the economies.
      - monort 11y ago
        Not only smartphones can access internet. http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other
    - hellbanner 11y ago
      Does "over 100%" mean that on average every person has > 1 internet phone?
  - quadrangle 11y ago
quadrangle 11y ago
Maybe Zuck is sociopathic? I don't know, but that can help with achieving straight-faced hypocrisy. Anyway, please don't spread the "no such thing as free" propaganda. It's good to be skeptical of anything free, but truly free can exist. In the same sense, people should be skeptical of all sorts of scammers and catches, people that may claim to be in love with you but are really scamming you, and yet sincere unconditional love does exist in the world.
bduerst 11y ago
I think the more sinister thing about it is that it will hinder any of the developing ISP markets in these nations, kind of like how Toms Shoes put shoe makers out of business. Throw in that this is Facebook, not internet, where Facebook is free but everything else is charged, and you're making an obvious monopsonic grab on these people.
danpalmer 11y ago
I tend to see the best in people, so I think Zuckerberg honestly believes Free Basics is a good idea, and not against net neutrality. I can see one way of this coming about... You start with an idea to give completely free, net-neutral internet to the poor. Next someone tells you that you need to pipe that through something so that the ISPs don't charge for the data, fine, it's now free, but goes through a pipe, and since you have a company with lots of resources, let's make it a Facebook pipe, as it's easier. You ask services to just register with you so that you can let them through the pipe. Then you realise that most people using this are going to be using it on devices that can't run Javascript and heavyweight CSS, so the content needs to be a little more basic. Facebook already does that, but you need other services to, so you run a few quick quality checks on their site when they sign up. Easy, better user experience, anyone can still do this, anyone can sign up to provide a service on free basics, so it's still neutral right? Finally, you find out that lots of these countries that you're providing free basics in have random obscure laws about what you can and can't do online, so you add in a clause that lets you deny approval to sites that don't conform to the laws, just to cover yourself legally, you don't want to be sued out of the country by the government, otherwise you wouldn't be able to provide your service! So that's it, you can now provide a net-neutral service to non-internet users.

by yalogin 11y ago

pbalau 11y ago

Let me ask you a question: the Free Basics is targeted to people that can't afford another way to get internet. What will showing ads to these people accomplish?

yalogin 11y ago
Ad dollars were the wrong choice of words, its more gaining mind share and users. So do you really believe FB did it for the good of the people and that this free basics thing is good? What do you think a poor guy without access to proper resources like food, education will gain by sharing likes on FB?
- samfisher83 11y ago
  Obviously facebook is motivated by ad dollars, but people get some benefit out of it. Maybe that poor guy will see some image that makes him laugh.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    I don't think access to cat pictures justifies shitting all over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure just to provide a profitable but censored service we'd never accept ourselves. Net neutrality was the last bastion of freedom online, but it's somehow too high of a standard for societies with lower rates of internet access?
    - mkagenius 11y ago
      > pictures justifies shitting all over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure If you rely on government to build free internet access infrastructure for poor people, it could take long time. While on the other hand, fb has managed to build something and convinced telcos to give it for free to poor and promised that they will soon see those people converting into a full-internet user and will pay you the normal rate. So, actually the grand plan is to get them to use full internet, which is not bad for either parties I think.
      - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        Where in FB business plan does it say that they'll invest all of that money to provide a locked-in service just to make it easier and cheaper for people to move from that service to one that doesn't prioritize FB content over their competitors'? I don't see that anywhere. It's almost as if there is a lot of money in getting a class of people to think FB is the internet by cutting off any real initiative for full internet access.
    - hellbanner 11y ago
      Speaking of shitting over a country's chances of building out proper infrastructure, have you read http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452287081 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452287081 Confessions of an Economic Hitman? It's all about the USA doing exactly that, by promising massive GDP gains. When they fail to net the profit required to pay the contractors, the contractors take over the infrastructure -- netting the USA dozens of corporate-owned electrical infrastructure all over the world, chiefly South America & the Middle East (!!)
      - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        I picked that up a few months ago but haven't had the time (management skills) to start it yet.
ProAm 11y ago
indoctrination
roymurdock 11y ago
How many people do you know that have ever purchased anything from a Facebook ad or clicked on one other than by accident? Ads are increasingly about product placement, brand presence and being top of mind. Especially when you can be sure that 80% of your clickthroughs on Facebook are from some bot network that Facebook doesn't bother to crack down on because it adds to their userbase metric, which is what the derive such a high valuation from. [1] I'm sure coke, nestle, and other branded basic commodities (food, drink, clothing) would love a way to show ads to this low-income segment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag
danohuiginn 11y ago
Network effects. Even if these people don't have cash, their presence on facebook may encourage wealthier friends/relatives to participate more. [and even poor people may be advertising targets, for the right customer. Loan sharks? Political parties? Religious groups?]

samfisher83 11y ago

You are free not to use it if you want. You can pay for the internet. I wonder what people who actually use the service think. I remember using netzero. You had to view ads for that.

pkd 11y ago
Most of the people who will actually end up using the service will be middle class people who can afford to pay for the internet and have been doing so but want to take it for a spin and see how it feels. The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it.
- monort 11y ago
  Egypt’s mobile penetration is over 100%, poor have mobile phones that can access internet.
  - pkd 11y ago
    How does mobile penetration relate to the type of devices the people are using? India has almost 80% mobile penetration, but less than half of that is using smart/multimedia enabled phones. I'd estimate that Egypt's condition won't be vastly different considering the similarities between the economies.
    - monort 11y ago
      Not only smartphones can access internet. http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Does "over 100%" mean that on average every person has > 1 internet phone?
- quadrangle 11y ago

quadrangle 11y ago

Maybe Zuck is sociopathic? I don't know, but that can help with achieving straight-faced hypocrisy. Anyway, please don't spread the "no such thing as free" propaganda. It's good to be skeptical of anything free, but truly free can exist. In the same sense, people should be skeptical of all sorts of scammers and catches, people that may claim to be in love with you but are really scamming you, and yet sincere unconditional love does exist in the world.

bduerst 11y ago

I think the more sinister thing about it is that it will hinder any of the developing ISP markets in these nations, kind of like how Toms Shoes put shoe makers out of business. Throw in that this is Facebook, not internet, where Facebook is free but everything else is charged, and you're making an obvious monopsonic grab on these people.

danpalmer 11y ago

I tend to see the best in people, so I think Zuckerberg honestly believes Free Basics is a good idea, and not against net neutrality. I can see one way of this coming about... You start with an idea to give completely free, net-neutral internet to the poor. Next someone tells you that you need to pipe that through something so that the ISPs don't charge for the data, fine, it's now free, but goes through a pipe, and since you have a company with lots of resources, let's make it a Facebook pipe, as it's easier. You ask services to just register with you so that you can let them through the pipe. Then you realise that most people using this are going to be using it on devices that can't run Javascript and heavyweight CSS, so the content needs to be a little more basic. Facebook already does that, but you need other services to, so you run a few quick quality checks on their site when they sign up. Easy, better user experience, anyone can still do this, anyone can sign up to provide a service on free basics, so it's still neutral right? Finally, you find out that lots of these countries that you're providing free basics in have random obscure laws about what you can and can't do online, so you add in a clause that lets you deny approval to sites that don't conform to the laws, just to cover yourself legally, you don't want to be sued out of the country by the government, otherwise you wouldn't be able to provide your service! So that's it, you can now provide a net-neutral service to non-internet users.