4 ms·

A point that is brought up occasionally, but probably not enough: Deleting Facebook really isn't possible for a nontrivial percentage of the world population, s

by sydli 9y ago

A point that is brought up occasionally, but probably not enough: Deleting Facebook really isn't possible for a nontrivial percentage of the world population, since Facebook is the internet in some places. Their monopoly over internet infrastructure in some developing countries is such that people can't afford non-Facebook internet packages, and seems to disincentivize actual low-cost internet infrastructure from being built out.

harry8 9y ago
I'm not in favour of nationalization as a rule. I can see it being a populist thing to do in those countries. Facebook are the agent of foreign states, we must control our own critically important infrastructure! (cheers) Free internet for all! (more cheers) Populism is so hot right now.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > I'm not in favour of nationalization as a rule. > we must control our own critically important infrastructure! (cheers) You're conflating two things. If the US somehow lost all steel foundries without being able to spin things up in a reasonable amount of time, we're screwed in a war. You must indeed make sure that you're self-sufficient in things that are essential for living in case you're cut off due to circumstances. I'm not quite sure what your point is.
tuna-piano 9y ago
Absolutely correct. I've met people in Asia (Myanmar and Nepal) who have just accessed the internet for the first time in the past 12-24 months (through their Android smartphones). But they don't know the true internet - they only know the internet through the Facebook app. They use it like we use Google and web browsers. To them, Facebook is the internet. They don't have email accounts. They don't use the browser. They don't search the web. I met someone in a small town who never even used the maps feature. I tried to think of what value the true internet might bring them, but when I suggested that "you can search for news and read other things", the response was that they already did that with the Facebook App. One guy handed me his phone, so I could add myself as a friend on his Facebook. While I started typing my name, I noticed his search history... and to him, Facebook was even a substitute for what people in the USA might use Incognito mode for! I would call Facebook their internet portal, but it's not really a portal to anything - Facebook is just the entire internet to them. Buzzfeed (yes, Buzzfeed) did an excellent writeup of Myanmar, that mirrors what I saw there: https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru.. https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru.... “Nobody asks, they don’t care about the email,” he said, explaining that most don’t know that creating an email address is free, and easy. “No one is using that. They have Facebook.”
- fwgwgwgch 9y ago
  > buzz feed Since you are as surprised as I was a month back, I've looked further and concluded that buzz feed actually funds very high quality journalism (yes yes shocking I know) and presents facts from both sides. They do it using the money generated from click baits. I'd even make what will sound like a hyperbole , if you are the sort that wants truth on both sides of political spectrum and not just an echo chamber , go to buzz feed, and not NY TIMES or wapo.
  - gowld 9y ago
    > both sides. There are more than 2 sides to a story.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - dibstern 9y ago
    https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.
    - bgilroy26 9y ago
      These h3h3 videos (The pro man-spreading one and the whiteface MTV one) are kind of silly. Would you really say that Buzzfeed's bias strains your credulity, or is it more likely that you simply disagree with them?
      - dibstern 9y ago
        All of h3h3's videos are silly. That's his style of comedy. You can't see that a video shaped entirely by left-wing identity politics that blames all men for the crimes of a few, that ignores practical realities contributing to the issue, has a left-wing bias? Are you serious?
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Their monopoly over internet infrastructure in some developing countries" In which developing countries does Facebook have a "monopoly" over internet infrastructure?
- freyir 9y ago
  Facebook has been actively targeting developing countries that lack Internet infrastructure. They offer a walled garden consisting of Facebook and a few other sites for free. They initially called it Internet.org, but it’s since been renamed Free Basics. I guess the concern is that people will confuse Facebook for the Internet, and they’ll think they’re getting the Internet for free. It then becomes very difficult for a real ISP offering full Internet access to enter the market.
  - juststeve 9y ago
    you got a link?
    - freyir 9y ago
      https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet-org/ https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet... I don’t know if they have “monopolies”, as OP claimed, but these are the countries where they operate: https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/ https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/
      - juststeve 9y ago
        ok thanks yeah i get the vibe
- sydli 9y ago
  This is the model for internet/Facebook access in several sub-saharan African countries and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Participants They've partnered up with large telecom operators in these regions to offer zero-rated Facebook access. The Guardian has a couple of decent writeups about it too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-basics-internet-africa-mark-zuckerberg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-...

by sydli 9y ago

harry8 9y ago

I'm not in favour of nationalization as a rule. I can see it being a populist thing to do in those countries. Facebook are the agent of foreign states, we must control our own critically important infrastructure! (cheers) Free internet for all! (more cheers) Populism is so hot right now.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> I'm not in favour of nationalization as a rule. > we must control our own critically important infrastructure! (cheers) You're conflating two things. If the US somehow lost all steel foundries without being able to spin things up in a reasonable amount of time, we're screwed in a war. You must indeed make sure that you're self-sufficient in things that are essential for living in case you're cut off due to circumstances. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

tuna-piano 9y ago

Absolutely correct. I've met people in Asia (Myanmar and Nepal) who have just accessed the internet for the first time in the past 12-24 months (through their Android smartphones). But they don't know the true internet - they only know the internet through the Facebook app. They use it like we use Google and web browsers. To them, Facebook is the internet. They don't have email accounts. They don't use the browser. They don't search the web. I met someone in a small town who never even used the maps feature. I tried to think of what value the true internet might bring them, but when I suggested that "you can search for news and read other things", the response was that they already did that with the Facebook App. One guy handed me his phone, so I could add myself as a friend on his Facebook. While I started typing my name, I noticed his search history... and to him, Facebook was even a substitute for what people in the USA might use Incognito mode for! I would call Facebook their internet portal, but it's not really a portal to anything - Facebook is just the entire internet to them. Buzzfeed (yes, Buzzfeed) did an excellent writeup of Myanmar, that mirrors what I saw there: https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru.. https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru.... “Nobody asks, they don’t care about the email,” he said, explaining that most don’t know that creating an email address is free, and easy. “No one is using that. They have Facebook.”

fwgwgwgch 9y ago
> buzz feed Since you are as surprised as I was a month back, I've looked further and concluded that buzz feed actually funds very high quality journalism (yes yes shocking I know) and presents facts from both sides. They do it using the money generated from click baits. I'd even make what will sound like a hyperbole , if you are the sort that wants truth on both sides of political spectrum and not just an echo chamber , go to buzz feed, and not NY TIMES or wapo.
- gowld 9y ago
  > both sides. There are more than 2 sides to a story.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dibstern 9y ago
  https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.
  - bgilroy26 9y ago
    These h3h3 videos (The pro man-spreading one and the whiteface MTV one) are kind of silly. Would you really say that Buzzfeed's bias strains your credulity, or is it more likely that you simply disagree with them?
    - dibstern 9y ago
      All of h3h3's videos are silly. That's his style of comedy. You can't see that a video shaped entirely by left-wing identity politics that blames all men for the crimes of a few, that ignores practical realities contributing to the issue, has a left-wing bias? Are you serious?

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Their monopoly over internet infrastructure in some developing countries" In which developing countries does Facebook have a "monopoly" over internet infrastructure?

freyir 9y ago
Facebook has been actively targeting developing countries that lack Internet infrastructure. They offer a walled garden consisting of Facebook and a few other sites for free. They initially called it Internet.org, but it’s since been renamed Free Basics. I guess the concern is that people will confuse Facebook for the Internet, and they’ll think they’re getting the Internet for free. It then becomes very difficult for a real ISP offering full Internet access to enter the market.
- juststeve 9y ago
  you got a link?
  - freyir 9y ago
    https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet-org/ https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet... I don’t know if they have “monopolies”, as OP claimed, but these are the countries where they operate: https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/ https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/
    - juststeve 9y ago
      ok thanks yeah i get the vibe
sydli 9y ago
This is the model for internet/Facebook access in several sub-saharan African countries and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Participants They've partnered up with large telecom operators in these regions to offer zero-rated Facebook access. The Guardian has a couple of decent writeups about it too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-basics-internet-africa-mark-zuckerberg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-...