4 ms·
> I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. I don't know about anyone else, but giving people Facebook-only service and callin
by bdrool 10y ago
> I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world.
I don't know about anyone else, but giving people Facebook-only service and calling it pretending that's the same as full internet access is not my idea of "more connected". Free or not, that's an insane level of lock-in.
- mattmcknight 10y agoIt's not a Facebook only service, includes Google, Wikipedia, etc. and is sponsored by a consortium of companies. One bizarre consequence of zero rating limitations is that in Angola people started attaching pirated content to Wikipedia articles to create free filesharing. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...
- bdrool 10y agoI knew that would be response, but a tiny handful of token free sites don't help. It's either the internet or it isn't. And guess what: it's not. It's impossible to overstate just how bad it would be to allow Facebook to define what is and isn't "the internet" for billions of people. I'm continuously stunned that anyone would defend their efforts in this area.
- mpbm 10y agoI'm not sure how you'd propose to stop them from trying. They're offering a service. People will accept or reject that service based on the costs and benefits. Can you think of a way to provide internet to everyone in the world that wouldn't involve a powerful entity who's intentions worry you? Maybe distributing mesh networking tech? Well, that would have to be developed, manufactured, and distributed, AND maintained. Who's going to do that? A charity? A consortium of charities?