3 ms·
> ...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 doe
by 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 agoI 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.