4 ms·

Facebook tried to game the "Invited comments" system in an amateurish way and got spanked. GOOD! But this should not distract from the fact the there needs to

Facebook tried to game the "Invited comments" system in an amateurish way and got spanked. GOOD! But this should not distract from the fact the there needs to be a substantive debate about the merits/otherwise of their Free Basics initiative. In a country like India where millions of people have ZERO access to the full internet, any effort that provides ANY access - however limited and curated - should not the shouted down by a vocal subgroup. If after a meaningful debate the conclusion is that it is better to hope for eventual full access with zero current access(!) rather than instant limited access then so be it, but Facebook is not helping its cause with these stupid shenanigans.

jags-v 11y ago
I do think that any attempt to provide access which is limited & curated should be shouted down , because it is totally disastrous in the long term. There are other business models which are currently in play , which can be considered, such as - Aircel has free access at a speed of 64kbps (very slow) but still the user has access to the entirety of the internet , not a walled garden. - There is a different model, where user view an ad on a per day basis and get a certain data limit in return. Mozilla has implemented this. This gives access to entirety of the internet.
- rspeer 11y ago
  Man, I remember when 33.6kbps was perfectly acceptable for participating in sites like Slashdot. I bet websites could provide appropriately low-bandwidth versions more easily than they could be vetted by Facebook's walled garden.
  - jags-v 11y ago
    yep. Most of the sites are heavy because of tracking & user analytics part of which make make a huge chunk of the data download( pixel tracking , etc.)
jace 11y ago
Facebook claims 11 million supporters. The "vocal subgroup" at SaveTheInternet has only 400k. Who's shouting down whom?

jags-v 11y ago

I do think that any attempt to provide access which is limited & curated should be shouted down , because it is totally disastrous in the long term. There are other business models which are currently in play , which can be considered, such as - Aircel has free access at a speed of 64kbps (very slow) but still the user has access to the entirety of the internet , not a walled garden. - There is a different model, where user view an ad on a per day basis and get a certain data limit in return. Mozilla has implemented this. This gives access to entirety of the internet.

rspeer 11y ago
Man, I remember when 33.6kbps was perfectly acceptable for participating in sites like Slashdot. I bet websites could provide appropriately low-bandwidth versions more easily than they could be vetted by Facebook's walled garden.
- jags-v 11y ago
  yep. Most of the sites are heavy because of tracking & user analytics part of which make make a huge chunk of the data download( pixel tracking , etc.)

jace 11y ago

Facebook claims 11 million supporters. The "vocal subgroup" at SaveTheInternet has only 400k. Who's shouting down whom?