4 ms·

> Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Yes, it's better, because it creates the incentive for telecom ope

> Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Yes, it's better, because it creates the incentive for telecom operators to lower costs. And the problem with FB's initiative is that nobody can compete against free, establishing the status quo, not to mention a precedent for other monopolies. Besides, nothing in life is free of cost, not even air, as Delhi's citizens are finding out. > it is each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or nothing, not you nor their government That's strange logic. The purpose of government is to ensure the proper use of force in order to protect the rights of the citizens and ensure their well-being. Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. And in a democracy you decide by voting for people representing your interests, and/or by making your voice heard in some way, like protesting in the streets or in writing maybe. But other than that, there are plenty of cases where the individual cannot decide what's best for him, because the law exists (ideally for everybody, can't speak for India).

necessity 10y ago
No one can compete against free? But that free is limited to Facebook. I bet a lot of people would like more than that and would be willing to pay for it. >Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. That's strange logic. Considering that people often do not prefer such deferment and are often pissed at government decisions. I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product. It is government's role however to make sure that products don't get preferential treatment, i.e. there is fair competition on the market. Because otherwise things turn into monopolies. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Facebook can't be treated preferentially (i.e. be exempt from data caps). Either axe all caps, or have everyone be subjected to them. Facebook exempt and everyone else no? That shouldn't happen.
  - necessity 10y ago
    The Indian example is Google receiving preferential treatment over Facebook because of net neutrality. I'm not saying Facebook should not respect nn while everyone else does, I'm saying no one should.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      Did they plan to provide Google only connection? As far as I understood, they planned regular Internet access. Not "Google or nothing". So it's not comparable to what Facebook were planning. > I'm saying no one should. Well, FB tried not to. Luckily, they were put in place by the law. And you propose not to have such law, giving monopoly abusers free reign.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  >> _I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product._ Like an Atom Bomb :) ... Or an AK-47. It's completely government's role actually, and again, that's why we elect them. Your ideas (after reading multiple of your comments) are very close to that of anarchy.

necessity 10y ago

No one can compete against free? But that free is limited to Facebook. I bet a lot of people would like more than that and would be willing to pay for it. >Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. That's strange logic. Considering that people often do not prefer such deferment and are often pissed at government decisions. I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product.

shmerl 10y ago
> it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product. It is government's role however to make sure that products don't get preferential treatment, i.e. there is fair competition on the market. Because otherwise things turn into monopolies. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Facebook can't be treated preferentially (i.e. be exempt from data caps). Either axe all caps, or have everyone be subjected to them. Facebook exempt and everyone else no? That shouldn't happen.
- necessity 10y ago
  The Indian example is Google receiving preferential treatment over Facebook because of net neutrality. I'm not saying Facebook should not respect nn while everyone else does, I'm saying no one should.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    Did they plan to provide Google only connection? As far as I understood, they planned regular Internet access. Not "Google or nothing". So it's not comparable to what Facebook were planning. > I'm saying no one should. Well, FB tried not to. Luckily, they were put in place by the law. And you propose not to have such law, giving monopoly abusers free reign.
piyush_soni 10y ago
>> _I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product._ Like an Atom Bomb :) ... Or an AK-47. It's completely government's role actually, and again, that's why we elect them. Your ideas (after reading multiple of your comments) are very close to that of anarchy.