9 ms·

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.

yggydrasily 11y ago
Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.
- circuitslave 11y ago
  It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.
  - everly 11y ago
    I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago
      I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.
      - abhaga 11y ago
        If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing? In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)
        hackinthebochs 11y ago
        I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.
        waterhouse 11y ago
        Textual porn, at least, is not a significant bandwidth sink...
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        > If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing? No, not really. It's giving them an option, and they can decide for themselves.
- drumdance 11y ago
  Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.
  - samstave 11y ago
    Walmart was in the same class
    - tylermauthe 11y ago
      I'm sure you're right, but I'm curious -- in what ways?
    - DavidChouinard 11y ago
      All successful companies are part of the class, visible or not.
  - rms_returns 11y ago
    They did their best to kill Linux: - Negotiation and "arrangements" with OEMs that they will only pre-install Windows on all devices. - Allowing "selective piracy" to happen so the masses are addicted only to Windows, while they still earn from corporate clients. - Making Word/Excel formats not compatible with ODF (Open Document Format), thus making it difficult for OpenOffice/LibreOffice to function. If I think about it, it seems like a wonder that I even have Linux running on my laptop today!
- awqrre 11y ago
  What Facebook is trying to do is completely different... you were always able to use non-microsoft products/programs on Windows or browse non-microsoft websites... what Facebook is trying to do is much worst (probably evil).
  - habosa 11y ago
    You could also view it as not too different. Windows wanted to be the platform under everything. Now Facebook wants to be the platform under everything, and content/apps will have to go through Facebook (look at the direct publishing stuff they're already doing).
    - wslh 11y ago
      But the big difference is: you could reverse engineer Microsoft Windows to do what you want beyond the APIs provided but you can't reverse engineer Facebook because you don't have the code running on your machine.
    - awqrre 11y ago
      You don't have to go through Microsoft to publish Windows apps... not sure if it changed with Windows 10 though... but of course they are trying to change that to be like Android and iOS and get complete control.
      - sirkneeland 11y ago
        Windows 10 for PCs offers the store but does not require you to publish through it. For now, anyway.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  Actually, there's no reason to believe that his effort is sincere. His main company has a pretty bad track record of being sincere or upfront about anything it has ever done. Many on HN are sympathetic to him because he seems to be like us but he isn't. Like you said: he is more like 90s Bill Gates than he is like any of us.
  - knughit 11y ago
    Why do you think many of us are not like 90s Bill Gates?
- joenathan 11y ago
  Zuckerberg is the new Zuckerberg! What's up with all these comparisons? You are trying to make one man into another man, they are different men, with different things going through their heads, stop it.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  Let's just grab our wikipedia archive and get off the net; it has been going downhill for a while now. Time to detach.
oxide 11y ago
>Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. >I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. why?
- click170 11y ago
  I can't speak for op but I agree with them and can explain why I feel that way. I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me. They want to make the world a better place, and they are simply pursuing an agenda that accomplishes that in their eyes. I don't have any evidence that most people aren't evil, but in my day to day interactions I have yet to meet someone who I believe is sincerely evil. I'm sure they're out there, I just have faith that there's a lot more of the rest of us. Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world? (For the record I'm opposed to Free Basics)
  - chongli 11y ago
    How much does it really matter, though? I'm sure Kim Jong-Un thinks he's making his country a better place, as thought Hitler. Perhaps we should focus more on judging the outcomes of people's actions instead of their intent.
    - click170 11y ago
      I completely agree, results matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes.
      - jotux 11y ago
        This reminds me of the saying, "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    It is possible that he could see it as a land grab but not see a "land grab" as inherently evil.
avar 11y ago
Oh come on, this is a guy who poorly disguises a press release about a restructuring of his finances as a letter to his daughter. It's much more likely that Zuckerberg realizes his company is overvalued, and that he needs to acquire a massive amount of users to make up for that gap. Subsidizing a walled-garden version of the Internet where users can only use Facebook in developing countries makes strategic sense for the company. Facebook doesn't care about "free internet", they care about building their business, and this "free basics" program makes that patently obvious. I don't blame them or necessarily think it's a bad thing , but the propaganda associated with it is ridiculous.
- tylermauthe 11y ago
  How is not necessarily a bad thing? In what way could it possibly be a good thing for anybody outside of Facebook?
  - avar 11y ago
    There are some people who are using "free basics" now that wouldn't have any Internet access without it. Now, you could argue and I'd probably agree with you that it's bad in the long term, creates a distorted market etc. But if a foreign company offers a net subsidy to access a part of the Internet shouldn't that drive down the price of Internet access for everyone? I.e. you could access "free basics" and also have a complimentary Internet subscription that could be offered at a lower price since your Facebook traffic would be subsidized.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      The whole "helping the poor" is a red herring. Facebook could just as easily offer a net neutral internet, but they're not - that's what people are upset about.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    In the scenario of free walled-garden internet access vs. no access, how can you justify claiming its not a good thing?
kafkaesq 11y ago
Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. Agreed. Given what we know about his history, he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. And that the fact that everything they say and do within his realm is relentlessly indexed, analyzed (with literally the most advanced AI techniques money can buy), gleefully pimped out to advertisers -- and at the request of authoritarian governments, outright blocked -- is on balance, all in their best interest.
- Apocryphon 11y ago
  he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. It's tragic that this is a mistake we see again and again in tech, even with the presence of anti-authority/countercultural tendencies and groups in this field.
  - bdamm 11y ago
    Every day I'm asked to reduce the choices I provide to my users. I work in cryptography infrastructure. And frankly, sometimes it's much better to provide a sane default and let the ones who really care figure out their own path.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Steve Jobs was the same. Doesn't mean they weren't both right though.
- fleitz 11y ago
  Umm... free internet/basics/walled garden is an additional choice... Not sure how free basics reduces choice.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    If you don't know what real shrimp tastes and you are force fed surimi during a massive disinformation campaign that tells surimi is all shrimp you need, would you call that a choice?
harveywi 11y ago
Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab Does anyone recall what Zuckerberg said about the people who "trust him"?
- lunula 11y ago
  Apparently we shouldn't mention this here because he said it when he was young and likely to say reprehensible things. But, has he ever apologized? I am discontent to watch the world lay power at his feet, and proud of Indians for standing up to him.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    More important than an apology would be a statement that it is no longer true (if that is, in fact, the case). Anyone have a link to such a statement?
    - hellameta 11y ago
      Although it may give some positive press - the reality is that he was a young adult when he said it and he simply can't take it back. We don't need to pretend he's some kind of saint. This fake modesty is seriously nonsense. Zuck is a competitor and a winner and does what is necessary. That's it.
      - knughit 11y ago
        Competing and winning has no dependency on harvesting user data and giving it away to his friends for their own personal use.
        hellameta 11y ago
        I'm quite sure I addressed that in 3/4 sentences in my post. He is no saint.
  - 11y ago
chrischen 11y ago
If you look at every individual decision one makes it's rarely ever malicious. The reason to limit government power isn't necessarily because the government currently is bad, but that over a long period it sets a bad trajectory. Every decision must be evaluated based on its long term trajectory. For example, giving a benevolent government unchecked powers will actually produce short term efficiency gains. But given infinite time, and the fact that it only takes one Hitler to fuck things up completely, it reasons that giving a government unchecked powers will inevitably lead to that scenario. In Zuckerberg's case, regardless of his motivations, his plan will most likely have short term benefits. It's unfortunate because that's a great selling point. Unfortunately the net neutrality precedent it sets for the long term is bad, and just like Nazi America with a government with unchecked powers, letting Facebook do this is equivalent to giving them a monopoly because such an action will inevitably converge in abuse at some point in the future by integrating over the individual benevolent actions over an infinite amount of time.
tomphoolery 11y ago
I think there's another motive at play, he's using 3rd-world countries as a proving ground for tiered Internet access. Facebook has already come out against net neutrality, and has billions of dollars to play with. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to test their theories that have been shot down in their own country? Zuckerberg might be ostensibly altruistic about his lofty goal of bringing Internet access to everyone, but that's not the Internet we know and love. It's only the content that Facebook approves, and if you want more knowledge, you're gonna have to pay. That's not the Web I grew up with, and if I were Indian I would be trying my hardest to figure out a better solution that gives just the same amount of people access without them having to give up their freedom.
- fleitz 11y ago
  Even if there were only one package of internet available globally there would still be tiered internet, you can pay for that one package, or you can not pay for it. The only way we'd have universal untiered internet is if there was some sort of government fee / tax that you just had to pay to get internet and that was your only option. Everyone has vastly different (tiered) internet experiences, for example the internet on my phone is faster than the internet on my desktop when uploading. On my phone I pay for additional data use on my desktop I don't.
  - bhashkarsharma 11y ago
    The difference is that if you choose to go to any URL, you can (not considering device capability and support; flash etc) from any of your devices. And what you pay to go to one website is the same amount that you pay to go to a different website as long as you use the same amount of data. Data rates being different across networks is a different issue.
gauravagarwalr 11y ago
He is sincere in making FB the internet. Those are never noble intentions. He is all for the money rather than actually giving a service for the greater good. I am sure he realizes that. If he was sincere, he would have been truthful rather than using every kind of fallacy from https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fallacies.png https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fall....
arsenide 11y ago
Thank you for expressing this in a coherent way. I think there are a good number of people in positions of power truly trying to do things for the common good but instead individuals on the outside look at it and think these people are doing them for only corporate gain.
zouhair 11y ago
Sincere? Really? I have more of a feeling the guy is a psychopath.
rms_returns 11y ago
> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. Or, is he desperately trying to save his company by getting the last remaining drops of users in a rapidly diminishing market for new user base? If you think about it, Facebook is not a monopoly that it used to be in the early 2000s, even comparing it Microsoft Windows (like someone did in this thread) is an erroneous exercise. Windows had a kind of monopoly on PC world that perhaps no other software product in the history of computing ever had. But Facebook has tonnes of alternatives. There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others. Granted that none of them is an exact replacement for FB, but then again, everything has its pros and cons, its a monopolistic competition anyways where each product in a competitive market is a monopoloy in itself.
- sirkneeland 11y ago
  There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others That's not the real threat to Facebook's empire. Those are all tools used by people in their late 20s and 30s who came of age in a desktop-first world and Facebook is comfortable coexisting with them. The thing that is a threat to Facebook long term is mobie apps like Snapchat, YikYak and other things we old farts haven't even heard of. They are used by (and represent) a new generation of truly mobile-first users for whom Facebook is something their parents ("old people") use. The biggest risk Facebook has with these users is not that it just unused, but uncool.
RodericDay 11y ago
> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. > However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. Why not just give people free bundles of data and let them gravitate towards Facebook how we do in ie: North America?
ignoramous 11y ago
Strange that you find the CEO utmost sincere but the company utmost suspicious. If I were you, I'd question the intentions too. The arguments have been laid out against "Free Basics" but Facebook has refused to engage the community. It continues to push its agenda forward by running dubious ad-campaigns and surveys. This is the second time Facebook has tried something similar, after having lost the first round of battle that led to many Indians uninstalling apps and boycotting websites that supported/participated in its "internet.org" initiative. Zuckerberg has managed to PR himself as sincere, honest, noble, altruist and what not... but that PR hasn't worked in India. He, personally, holds no sway unlike, may be, in SV. "Free Basics" let's not kid ourselves is a move by Facebook to take control of the Internet. It already controls 4 of the most popular apps on mobile in the English speaking world (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger); with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact. You even see Google trying to do that in a more subtle way... googleweblight, subsidized Nexus line of products, "free and open source" Android with tightly controlled ecosystem, Chrome with properiteary plug-ins, Fiber, Fi, and OnHub to quote a few.
- rms_returns 11y ago
  > with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact. It is not just that. The worrying thing is that they are violating net neutrality by making sure that "FB and friends" is the only thing accessible on this free internet. If Mr. Zuckerberg is that altruistic, why not provide proper full internet? Even a limited (say 500MB per person/month) internet for free is better than nothing. But no, they want to violate net neutrality by disallowing everyone else. They don't want to provide HTTPS security, but again snoop around their user's data so monies could be made out of that. Is this altruism, Mr. Zuckerberg?
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Facebook is blatantly violating net neutrality. I'm surprised this isn't in headlines. Imagine the backlash if Comcast charged you to access Netflix but gave you free NBC.com streaming.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
scope 11y ago
African here (WE are poor too, "Free Basics" will serve us as well) > Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. I personally think you're a lobbyist or you just like Mark (I mean who wouldn't, eccentric billionaire who gave MOST of his fortune away to a good cause. How could he possibly want to make MORE money) > But he is looking from the inside out. Yeah, EXACTLY, ask US (poor people) what we want! --- WE want our Mellenia to use snapchat (with the effects & everything), Netflix & Chill...oh my bad, I lost my train of thought. What I wanted to say was that, WE want you people (first world) to donate to UNICEF so the starving child with a fly on his eye can eat --- that was my outside-in view. Edit: to all the poor Indians who fought against "free basics", my upmost respect & gratitude --- I hope someday we can all Netflix & Chill instead of just pocking ;)
piyushpr134 11y ago
IF he is so sincere, then why not give the whole internet free? Why route all the traffic via fb servers ? Why force no encryption?
kinj28 11y ago
people who have no access to wifi or 3G internet would be the most likely users of free basics. And infrastructure in form of pathetic internet connectivity in form of 2g or edge or even gprs would be the given. Heartening thing I would look up to is if this would compel telcos to improve infra

yggydrasily 11y ago

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.

circuitslave 11y ago
It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.
- everly 11y ago
  I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.
    - abhaga 11y ago
      If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing? In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)
      - hackinthebochs 11y ago
        I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.
        waterhouse 11y ago
        Textual porn, at least, is not a significant bandwidth sink...
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing? No, not really. It's giving them an option, and they can decide for themselves.
drumdance 11y ago
Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.
- samstave 11y ago
  Walmart was in the same class
  - tylermauthe 11y ago
    I'm sure you're right, but I'm curious -- in what ways?
  - DavidChouinard 11y ago
    All successful companies are part of the class, visible or not.
- rms_returns 11y ago
  They did their best to kill Linux: - Negotiation and "arrangements" with OEMs that they will only pre-install Windows on all devices. - Allowing "selective piracy" to happen so the masses are addicted only to Windows, while they still earn from corporate clients. - Making Word/Excel formats not compatible with ODF (Open Document Format), thus making it difficult for OpenOffice/LibreOffice to function. If I think about it, it seems like a wonder that I even have Linux running on my laptop today!
awqrre 11y ago
What Facebook is trying to do is completely different... you were always able to use non-microsoft products/programs on Windows or browse non-microsoft websites... what Facebook is trying to do is much worst (probably evil).
- habosa 11y ago
  You could also view it as not too different. Windows wanted to be the platform under everything. Now Facebook wants to be the platform under everything, and content/apps will have to go through Facebook (look at the direct publishing stuff they're already doing).
  - wslh 11y ago
    But the big difference is: you could reverse engineer Microsoft Windows to do what you want beyond the APIs provided but you can't reverse engineer Facebook because you don't have the code running on your machine.
  - awqrre 11y ago
    You don't have to go through Microsoft to publish Windows apps... not sure if it changed with Windows 10 though... but of course they are trying to change that to be like Android and iOS and get complete control.
    - sirkneeland 11y ago
      Windows 10 for PCs offers the store but does not require you to publish through it. For now, anyway.
rpgmaker 11y ago
Actually, there's no reason to believe that his effort is sincere. His main company has a pretty bad track record of being sincere or upfront about anything it has ever done. Many on HN are sympathetic to him because he seems to be like us but he isn't. Like you said: he is more like 90s Bill Gates than he is like any of us.
- knughit 11y ago
  Why do you think many of us are not like 90s Bill Gates?
joenathan 11y ago
Zuckerberg is the new Zuckerberg! What's up with all these comparisons? You are trying to make one man into another man, they are different men, with different things going through their heads, stop it.
72deluxe 11y ago
Let's just grab our wikipedia archive and get off the net; it has been going downhill for a while now. Time to detach.

oxide 11y ago

>Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. >I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. why?

click170 11y ago
I can't speak for op but I agree with them and can explain why I feel that way. I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me. They want to make the world a better place, and they are simply pursuing an agenda that accomplishes that in their eyes. I don't have any evidence that most people aren't evil, but in my day to day interactions I have yet to meet someone who I believe is sincerely evil. I'm sure they're out there, I just have faith that there's a lot more of the rest of us. Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world? (For the record I'm opposed to Free Basics)
- chongli 11y ago
  How much does it really matter, though? I'm sure Kim Jong-Un thinks he's making his country a better place, as thought Hitler. Perhaps we should focus more on judging the outcomes of people's actions instead of their intent.
  - click170 11y ago
    I completely agree, results matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes.
    - jotux 11y ago
      This reminds me of the saying, "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."
- macspoofing 11y ago
  It is possible that he could see it as a land grab but not see a "land grab" as inherently evil.

avar 11y ago

Oh come on, this is a guy who poorly disguises a press release about a restructuring of his finances as a letter to his daughter. It's much more likely that Zuckerberg realizes his company is overvalued, and that he needs to acquire a massive amount of users to make up for that gap. Subsidizing a walled-garden version of the Internet where users can only use Facebook in developing countries makes strategic sense for the company. Facebook doesn't care about "free internet", they care about building their business, and this "free basics" program makes that patently obvious. I don't blame them or necessarily think it's a bad thing , but the propaganda associated with it is ridiculous.

tylermauthe 11y ago
How is not necessarily a bad thing? In what way could it possibly be a good thing for anybody outside of Facebook?
- avar 11y ago
  There are some people who are using "free basics" now that wouldn't have any Internet access without it. Now, you could argue and I'd probably agree with you that it's bad in the long term, creates a distorted market etc. But if a foreign company offers a net subsidy to access a part of the Internet shouldn't that drive down the price of Internet access for everyone? I.e. you could access "free basics" and also have a complimentary Internet subscription that could be offered at a lower price since your Facebook traffic would be subsidized.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    The whole "helping the poor" is a red herring. Facebook could just as easily offer a net neutral internet, but they're not - that's what people are upset about.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  In the scenario of free walled-garden internet access vs. no access, how can you justify claiming its not a good thing?

kafkaesq 11y ago

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. Agreed. Given what we know about his history, he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. And that the fact that everything they say and do within his realm is relentlessly indexed, analyzed (with literally the most advanced AI techniques money can buy), gleefully pimped out to advertisers -- and at the request of authoritarian governments, outright blocked -- is on balance, all in their best interest.

Apocryphon 11y ago
he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. It's tragic that this is a mistake we see again and again in tech, even with the presence of anti-authority/countercultural tendencies and groups in this field.
- bdamm 11y ago
  Every day I'm asked to reduce the choices I provide to my users. I work in cryptography infrastructure. And frankly, sometimes it's much better to provide a sane default and let the ones who really care figure out their own path.
peteretep 11y ago
Steve Jobs was the same. Doesn't mean they weren't both right though.
fleitz 11y ago
Umm... free internet/basics/walled garden is an additional choice... Not sure how free basics reduces choice.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  If you don't know what real shrimp tastes and you are force fed surimi during a massive disinformation campaign that tells surimi is all shrimp you need, would you call that a choice?

harveywi 11y ago

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab Does anyone recall what Zuckerberg said about the people who "trust him"?

lunula 11y ago
Apparently we shouldn't mention this here because he said it when he was young and likely to say reprehensible things. But, has he ever apologized? I am discontent to watch the world lay power at his feet, and proud of Indians for standing up to him.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  More important than an apology would be a statement that it is no longer true (if that is, in fact, the case). Anyone have a link to such a statement?
  - hellameta 11y ago
    Although it may give some positive press - the reality is that he was a young adult when he said it and he simply can't take it back. We don't need to pretend he's some kind of saint. This fake modesty is seriously nonsense. Zuck is a competitor and a winner and does what is necessary. That's it.
    - knughit 11y ago
      Competing and winning has no dependency on harvesting user data and giving it away to his friends for their own personal use.
      - hellameta 11y ago
        I'm quite sure I addressed that in 3/4 sentences in my post. He is no saint.
- 11y ago

chrischen 11y ago

If you look at every individual decision one makes it's rarely ever malicious. The reason to limit government power isn't necessarily because the government currently is bad, but that over a long period it sets a bad trajectory. Every decision must be evaluated based on its long term trajectory. For example, giving a benevolent government unchecked powers will actually produce short term efficiency gains. But given infinite time, and the fact that it only takes one Hitler to fuck things up completely, it reasons that giving a government unchecked powers will inevitably lead to that scenario. In Zuckerberg's case, regardless of his motivations, his plan will most likely have short term benefits. It's unfortunate because that's a great selling point. Unfortunately the net neutrality precedent it sets for the long term is bad, and just like Nazi America with a government with unchecked powers, letting Facebook do this is equivalent to giving them a monopoly because such an action will inevitably converge in abuse at some point in the future by integrating over the individual benevolent actions over an infinite amount of time.

tomphoolery 11y ago

I think there's another motive at play, he's using 3rd-world countries as a proving ground for tiered Internet access. Facebook has already come out against net neutrality, and has billions of dollars to play with. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to test their theories that have been shot down in their own country? Zuckerberg might be ostensibly altruistic about his lofty goal of bringing Internet access to everyone, but that's not the Internet we know and love. It's only the content that Facebook approves, and if you want more knowledge, you're gonna have to pay. That's not the Web I grew up with, and if I were Indian I would be trying my hardest to figure out a better solution that gives just the same amount of people access without them having to give up their freedom.

fleitz 11y ago
Even if there were only one package of internet available globally there would still be tiered internet, you can pay for that one package, or you can not pay for it. The only way we'd have universal untiered internet is if there was some sort of government fee / tax that you just had to pay to get internet and that was your only option. Everyone has vastly different (tiered) internet experiences, for example the internet on my phone is faster than the internet on my desktop when uploading. On my phone I pay for additional data use on my desktop I don't.
- bhashkarsharma 11y ago
  The difference is that if you choose to go to any URL, you can (not considering device capability and support; flash etc) from any of your devices. And what you pay to go to one website is the same amount that you pay to go to a different website as long as you use the same amount of data. Data rates being different across networks is a different issue.

gauravagarwalr 11y ago

He is sincere in making FB the internet. Those are never noble intentions. He is all for the money rather than actually giving a service for the greater good. I am sure he realizes that. If he was sincere, he would have been truthful rather than using every kind of fallacy from https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fallacies.png https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fall....

arsenide 11y ago

Thank you for expressing this in a coherent way. I think there are a good number of people in positions of power truly trying to do things for the common good but instead individuals on the outside look at it and think these people are doing them for only corporate gain.

zouhair 11y ago

Sincere? Really? I have more of a feeling the guy is a psychopath.

rms_returns 11y ago

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. Or, is he desperately trying to save his company by getting the last remaining drops of users in a rapidly diminishing market for new user base? If you think about it, Facebook is not a monopoly that it used to be in the early 2000s, even comparing it Microsoft Windows (like someone did in this thread) is an erroneous exercise. Windows had a kind of monopoly on PC world that perhaps no other software product in the history of computing ever had. But Facebook has tonnes of alternatives. There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others. Granted that none of them is an exact replacement for FB, but then again, everything has its pros and cons, its a monopolistic competition anyways where each product in a competitive market is a monopoloy in itself.

sirkneeland 11y ago
There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others That's not the real threat to Facebook's empire. Those are all tools used by people in their late 20s and 30s who came of age in a desktop-first world and Facebook is comfortable coexisting with them. The thing that is a threat to Facebook long term is mobie apps like Snapchat, YikYak and other things we old farts haven't even heard of. They are used by (and represent) a new generation of truly mobile-first users for whom Facebook is something their parents ("old people") use. The biggest risk Facebook has with these users is not that it just unused, but uncool.

RodericDay 11y ago

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. > However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. Why not just give people free bundles of data and let them gravitate towards Facebook how we do in ie: North America?

ignoramous 11y ago

Strange that you find the CEO utmost sincere but the company utmost suspicious. If I were you, I'd question the intentions too. The arguments have been laid out against "Free Basics" but Facebook has refused to engage the community. It continues to push its agenda forward by running dubious ad-campaigns and surveys. This is the second time Facebook has tried something similar, after having lost the first round of battle that led to many Indians uninstalling apps and boycotting websites that supported/participated in its "internet.org" initiative. Zuckerberg has managed to PR himself as sincere, honest, noble, altruist and what not... but that PR hasn't worked in India. He, personally, holds no sway unlike, may be, in SV. "Free Basics" let's not kid ourselves is a move by Facebook to take control of the Internet. It already controls 4 of the most popular apps on mobile in the English speaking world (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger); with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact. You even see Google trying to do that in a more subtle way... googleweblight, subsidized Nexus line of products, "free and open source" Android with tightly controlled ecosystem, Chrome with properiteary plug-ins, Fiber, Fi, and OnHub to quote a few.

rms_returns 11y ago
> with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact. It is not just that. The worrying thing is that they are violating net neutrality by making sure that "FB and friends" is the only thing accessible on this free internet. If Mr. Zuckerberg is that altruistic, why not provide proper full internet? Even a limited (say 500MB per person/month) internet for free is better than nothing. But no, they want to violate net neutrality by disallowing everyone else. They don't want to provide HTTPS security, but again snoop around their user's data so monies could be made out of that. Is this altruism, Mr. Zuckerberg?
- bduerst 11y ago
  Facebook is blatantly violating net neutrality. I'm surprised this isn't in headlines. Imagine the backlash if Comcast charged you to access Netflix but gave you free NBC.com streaming.
- Pyxl101 11y ago

scope 11y ago

African here (WE are poor too, "Free Basics" will serve us as well) > Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. I personally think you're a lobbyist or you just like Mark (I mean who wouldn't, eccentric billionaire who gave MOST of his fortune away to a good cause. How could he possibly want to make MORE money) > But he is looking from the inside out. Yeah, EXACTLY, ask US (poor people) what we want! --- WE want our Mellenia to use snapchat (with the effects & everything), Netflix & Chill...oh my bad, I lost my train of thought. What I wanted to say was that, WE want you people (first world) to donate to UNICEF so the starving child with a fly on his eye can eat --- that was my outside-in view. Edit: to all the poor Indians who fought against "free basics", my upmost respect & gratitude --- I hope someday we can all Netflix & Chill instead of just pocking ;)

piyushpr134 11y ago

IF he is so sincere, then why not give the whole internet free? Why route all the traffic via fb servers ? Why force no encryption?

kinj28 11y ago

people who have no access to wifi or 3G internet would be the most likely users of free basics. And infrastructure in form of pathetic internet connectivity in form of 2g or edge or even gprs would be the given. Heartening thing I would look up to is if this would compel telcos to improve infra