3 ms·

How do you draw the distinction between permissible zero-rating and non-permissible zero-rating?

• Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  This is full of holes, but I'll take a stab at this answer. First, the obvious straightforward sort of information. Wikipedia, for example. Medical advice and self-care, including text-heavy information on cooking, car and machine repair, and so on. Math, science, programming, parenting, history. Primary or secondary language learning and improvment. Anything that actually teaches you a skill (yes, this will be abused to a point, but I'm willing to allow folks to learn to juggle if others can learn to practical skills). Things like religious texts becomes a tricky area. I think it is good for society when folks learn about different philosophies and religions. Yet these would paid, as well as a lot of the grey area stuff because you gotta draw the line somewhere. Many books fall into this category, even old classics, because most books are intended for entertainment. Some things would depend on context. For example, meditation. In a religious context, no. In a psychology, science, or medical context? stick it in there. Social media is a paid product. Sometimes the cut-off won't make sense: Learning musical instruments would be free, but listening to them paid. In addition, the site itself would have to take action to be included. If they don't apply to be exempt or to renew exemption, folks must pay for the content.