3 ms·
> That's a lot more powerful, and a lot more expensive. It's not more powerful when Zuck wanted to limit it to Facebook.com and whatever other sites he felt li
by jonknee 10y ago
> That's a lot more powerful, and a lot more expensive.
It's not more powerful when Zuck wanted to limit it to Facebook.com and whatever other sites he felt like allowing Indians to access. It was just insulting and that's why it went down in flames.
- vram22 10y agoIt was worse than insulting, it would have limited the people using it, to the small list of sites (compared to the whole Internet) decided by others. It's like saying to someone: here's a free communication mechanism, you can only use it to access services run by us ... and in the process, be made to view our ads willy-nilly. For Internet newbies, it also has the side effect, that many of them might not even get to know (for a while, or ever) that other / better sites existed.
- onewaystreet 10y agoWhy is it insulting that a company offered people limited internet access for free?
- jonknee 10y agoFor me it's the super transparent self interest in that you only want these poor people online so that you can count their eyeballs in your DAUs and continue hitting higher numbers for your investors. You might not find that objectionable, but I do. Apparently India does as well! It would be like McDonalds offering to feed the hungry, but only if they exclusively ate McDonalds food. Yes they are hungry, but no they should not only be eating McDonalds food.