3 ms·

Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this. On top of that h

by yalogin 11y ago

Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this. On top of that he was condescending towards India by bringing up "poor" and "morality" when instead he should have commended India for not falling for the trap. He is entitled to his opinions about colonialism. People that care about it will respond.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
>> "Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this." He's a pretty big investor in Facebook. That's why he's willing to ignore the net neutrality implications - because it benefits him.
- fwn 11y ago
  Because everyone with a different opinion on the most beneficial infrastructural policy is driven by pure self-interest. ..basically the pop culture version of a regulatory debate.
  - tetrep 11y ago
    > ...the most beneficial infrastructural policy... That's a nice objective view of free basics. I honestly believe, as I believe the parent to your comment does, that free basics really is bad for the internet and that none of the big players supporting it, e.g. the board of Facebook, are ignorant of the massive walled garden effect that they expect and hope it will create. At this point I think it's pretty close to an evil plan. Imagine a privately run "public" transit system that dropped you off inside buildings with no exterior doors. You'd be hard pressed to argue that the creators of such a system would not be aware of the effects it would have om the businesses inside such buildings, much less that they're creating this network out of the kindness of the hearts to honestly just give people who are in need access to transportation. (little straw-many but i reallt hate the idea and implementation of free basics)
    - fwn 11y ago
      I did not want to say that the consequences of Facebooks Free Basics can't be seen as something bad. ..and I personally wouldn't argue for their proposed implementation either. It just bugs me that the whole debate always needs to be drown to the lowest common denominator of political understanding. There is little positioning left if everthing is always pressed in shallow us versus them identities. Both sides have better and worse arguments for their position. Ultimately, in my opinion, the issue comes down to solid antitrust mechanisms. To use your picture: If it is a transit system which sparks the idea of mobility in a previously immobile and unconnected society: I wouldn't stop it as long as there is room for other suppliers that might compete with exit-door featured stations.
_yosefk 11y ago
I thought net neutrality was about protecting consumers from selective high prices set by regional monopolies. Here it "protects" them from a free product that anyone is AFAIK free to compete with. Do I miss something or did things go wrong with the net neutrality idea?
- timonovici 11y ago
  That's not what neutrality means. That means the ISP doesn't take anyone side - either by making certain services faster at the expense of others being slower, or by setting preferential pricing. If facebook really cared about access to internet, they could negotiated 1 free GB of traffic / month for everyone, not just access to facebook and a few other websites that they picked.
  - _yosefk 11y ago
    What harm is done by giving something away without restricting anyone's options? How is it similar to a regional monopoly giving preferential treatment to some content? What are the reasons to oppose this that do not apply to giving away anything imaginable? (I understand it's a self-serving move by FB but on those grounds alone one can be opposed to anything.)

by yalogin 11y ago

k-mcgrady 11y ago

>> "Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this." He's a pretty big investor in Facebook. That's why he's willing to ignore the net neutrality implications - because it benefits him.

fwn 11y ago
Because everyone with a different opinion on the most beneficial infrastructural policy is driven by pure self-interest. ..basically the pop culture version of a regulatory debate.
- tetrep 11y ago
  > ...the most beneficial infrastructural policy... That's a nice objective view of free basics. I honestly believe, as I believe the parent to your comment does, that free basics really is bad for the internet and that none of the big players supporting it, e.g. the board of Facebook, are ignorant of the massive walled garden effect that they expect and hope it will create. At this point I think it's pretty close to an evil plan. Imagine a privately run "public" transit system that dropped you off inside buildings with no exterior doors. You'd be hard pressed to argue that the creators of such a system would not be aware of the effects it would have om the businesses inside such buildings, much less that they're creating this network out of the kindness of the hearts to honestly just give people who are in need access to transportation. (little straw-many but i reallt hate the idea and implementation of free basics)
  - fwn 11y ago
    I did not want to say that the consequences of Facebooks Free Basics can't be seen as something bad. ..and I personally wouldn't argue for their proposed implementation either. It just bugs me that the whole debate always needs to be drown to the lowest common denominator of political understanding. There is little positioning left if everthing is always pressed in shallow us versus them identities. Both sides have better and worse arguments for their position. Ultimately, in my opinion, the issue comes down to solid antitrust mechanisms. To use your picture: If it is a transit system which sparks the idea of mobility in a previously immobile and unconnected society: I wouldn't stop it as long as there is room for other suppliers that might compete with exit-door featured stations.

_yosefk 11y ago

I thought net neutrality was about protecting consumers from selective high prices set by regional monopolies. Here it "protects" them from a free product that anyone is AFAIK free to compete with. Do I miss something or did things go wrong with the net neutrality idea?

timonovici 11y ago
That's not what neutrality means. That means the ISP doesn't take anyone side - either by making certain services faster at the expense of others being slower, or by setting preferential pricing. If facebook really cared about access to internet, they could negotiated 1 free GB of traffic / month for everyone, not just access to facebook and a few other websites that they picked.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  What harm is done by giving something away without restricting anyone's options? How is it similar to a regional monopoly giving preferential treatment to some content? What are the reasons to oppose this that do not apply to giving away anything imaginable? (I understand it's a self-serving move by FB but on those grounds alone one can be opposed to anything.)