3 ms·

Ignorance at it's finest. Unlike the US the Indian telecom sector has cut throat competition, which is why data and call rates are at global lows. Even so they

by jm6 9y ago

Ignorance at it's finest. Unlike the US the Indian telecom sector has cut throat competition, which is why data and call rates are at global lows. Even so they don't have the resources to connect all of India. The math doesn't add up. Facebook Basics would have provided said resources. A robotic bunch of Indians influenced by the Net Neutrality hoopla developed and targeted at Monopoly Telecom in the US blindly applied these arguments to the Indian context. The result - rural India is and will remain unconnected. Telcos have no great new ideas on how to connect rural india (and therefore no great avenues to grow) so they are starting to merge. Soon we will have 1-2 giant Telcos monopolies. The clueless herd driven by social media reinforcement and validation strikes again.

viola11 9y ago
So in other words rural India was saved from becoming the robot slaves of social media activists by those very same activists?
markyuckerberg 9y ago
So you are simultaneously saying that the cut throat competition of the telco sector is keeping the data and call rates at global lows (a good thing), and saying that we need not have the same competition when the infrastructure for rural India is built out? If competition acts the way it normally does, someone is certainly going to figure out how to connect rural India in an economically viable way and profit immensely. Or the mathematics won't pan out, and the company dies. And the government will probably step in to fill the breach. And it will probably do an awful job (remember the mathematics never panned out?) Both of these are good outcomes. Compare this to handing over the control of such vital infrastructure to a megacorp which has a consistent track record of violating the trust of everyone - the users (random privacy rule changes), the advertisers (fake video views), those they acquire (e.g. the comedy show called WhatsApp ads), the jurisdictions they operate in (arbitrary censorship of content to make sure they kowtow to the public flavor du jour) and last but not least the legal system (claiming that they cannot/will not infer a WhatsApp user profile based on FB user profile knowing the pitifully tiny effect of the punitive damages). With such a track record, it is a surprise that they even have the temerity to still approach governments around the world to propose FreeBasics.
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  See the point is you don't have the right to impose your preferences on somebody else(here, rural Indians). Concretely, a rural Indian might be okay with privacy violations as long as they believe this benefit outweighs that. They if given a chance might enter into voluntary transaction with FreeBasics, you should not get to stop voluntary interactions. Why do you get a say on what their preferences are?
thecrazyone 9y ago
Well said. To be honest, I was one of those robots (influence by social media) who posted and pushed net neutrality a lot on social media. Now my stance is more free market oriented (libertarian). I think the socialist vs democracy revolution which happened last century is happening with libertarian vs democratic ideas now. You will not see it until it hits it's peak but it's well underway.

by jm6 9y ago

viola11 9y ago

So in other words rural India was saved from becoming the robot slaves of social media activists by those very same activists?

markyuckerberg 9y ago

So you are simultaneously saying that the cut throat competition of the telco sector is keeping the data and call rates at global lows (a good thing), and saying that we need not have the same competition when the infrastructure for rural India is built out? If competition acts the way it normally does, someone is certainly going to figure out how to connect rural India in an economically viable way and profit immensely. Or the mathematics won't pan out, and the company dies. And the government will probably step in to fill the breach. And it will probably do an awful job (remember the mathematics never panned out?) Both of these are good outcomes. Compare this to handing over the control of such vital infrastructure to a megacorp which has a consistent track record of violating the trust of everyone - the users (random privacy rule changes), the advertisers (fake video views), those they acquire (e.g. the comedy show called WhatsApp ads), the jurisdictions they operate in (arbitrary censorship of content to make sure they kowtow to the public flavor du jour) and last but not least the legal system (claiming that they cannot/will not infer a WhatsApp user profile based on FB user profile knowing the pitifully tiny effect of the punitive damages). With such a track record, it is a surprise that they even have the temerity to still approach governments around the world to propose FreeBasics.

thecrazyone 9y ago
See the point is you don't have the right to impose your preferences on somebody else(here, rural Indians). Concretely, a rural Indian might be okay with privacy violations as long as they believe this benefit outweighs that. They if given a chance might enter into voluntary transaction with FreeBasics, you should not get to stop voluntary interactions. Why do you get a say on what their preferences are?

thecrazyone 9y ago

Well said. To be honest, I was one of those robots (influence by social media) who posted and pushed net neutrality a lot on social media. Now my stance is more free market oriented (libertarian). I think the socialist vs democracy revolution which happened last century is happening with libertarian vs democratic ideas now. You will not see it until it hits it's peak but it's well underway.