3 ms·
> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irre
by shubhamjain 11y ago
> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).
Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure.
Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.
- icebraining 11y agoI don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I don't see how it addresses my point.
- toyg 11y agoThe point is that Free Basics existing would automatically remove a huge amount of incentive for other solutions appearing. Why bother building a better internet if FB already provides "the essentials" to everyone? It would wipe the market before it had a chance to develop organically as it happened elsewhere. If AOL had provided free access to its own services only we would have a very different network today.
- icebraining 11y agoThe Internet market in India already has 300+ million users, and has been growing at a good pace. It's hardly an incipient market. And besides, before AOL there was CompuServe (and Minitel, in France), which did provide access almost exclusively to its own services.
- toyg 11y agoCompuServe never had the volume and appeal FB has today. Minitel is a good reference because it is widely credited as one of the reasons France initially experienced slow internet uptake.