11 ms·

After harsh criticism, Facebook quietly pulls services from developing countries

187 points by mmaanniisshh 8y ago

adamnemecek 8y ago
I’d love to hear someone’s analysis as to why these things happen. Like these major, major fuck ups by some super national organizations and governments. Is this due to scale? Lack of accountability? Perverted incentives? I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. I hate the idea but like there needs to be some sort of counterweight to supernational organizations. Local governments trying to punish them is like a game of what-a-mole.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. Only because you feel like your definition of human rights would win, likely because you're american (as I am). Are you still for this if it meant China was the enforcer against the US? Are you ready for them to retaliate against us for citizens speaking out about CCP actions? The role and place of government, and even the idea that it is open to criticism, is a western idea. It is not a given that western ideas will continue to prevail (in fact, democracy is on the retreat worldwide).
- tyfon 8y ago
  That would be the UN but with policing power. I'm not opposed to the idea either. I'd also like it to hold government ministers/officials personally responsible for a states breaches of basic human rights. But the problem lies in it's structure, accountability and execution. It would be very hard to make a stable system that was objective and neither corrupt nor possible to subvert in some way.
  - JasonFruit 8y ago
    As witness the current UN: stable, but not objective, thoroughly corrupt, and constantly subverted by pretty dictators and wannabe genocides. I think giving an organization like that enforcement power over anything would be a disaster — even if it weren't an affront to every sovereign nation on Earth.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      The UN is a place to talk and conduct diplomacy. It is very intentionally intended to be the minimal, reliable set of international services needed to try and keep nations diplomatic channels open.
    - tyfon 8y ago
      Agree, the UN in it's current form is a joke. I have no idea how an ideal structure for this would be, if even one could be created. "Power corrupts" is still as true as it was in 1870.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    I agree the idea has problems. But I also would like to see democratic countries band closer together, and use their economic and military power to protect democracy and human rights. We opened our markets to many unfree countries on the idea that when they became richer, they would become democratic. We were wrong on that. Instead these countries sell to us to make themselves as dictators richer, and use our money to suppress their people, and in the name of free trade, we sell them the weapons and technology to do it. And when they become rich enough, they use their new found influence to attack democracy in other countries. Free trade with the west should be the reward for being democratic, free, and a protector of human rights of your citizens. Afterall it is our freedom that made us rich... we shouldn't allow dictators to benefit from it. Dictatorship is poverty. They are linked together. And without western money, they would be forced to live in the squalor they have created for themselves. Sadly our addiction to fossil fuels is probably the biggest impediment to this. Until thats solved, we'll continue to fund some of the worst human rights abusers in exchange for oil.
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  This is an extraordinarily difficult situation that is developing at a very fast pace, so information to make the sort of analysis you are asking for is very difficult. As you have seen by the regional government inquests, most of our national leaders are struggling to keep up as well. Here are a few observations: 1) the smartphone has become a technology vector to the most remote areas in the world, and its natural use case is communication 2) data is expensive, so expensive that many regions can not afford it regularly. 3) connectivity infrastructure is very expensive, and many developing regions customer base do not represent the revenues to support it. 4) Facebook and other services growth depend on reliable data connectivity 5) what started out as a way to launder facebooks ad inventory profits to carriers to provide free data so that Facebook and carrier networks could expand, turned into a cultural invasion 6) now areas who had not experienced the level of connectivity that Facebook affords are using it in radical and sometimes violent ways. 7) those local communities are struggling to regulate it while the broader developed world is shocked at the results 8) it turns out each region wants to regulate this in very different ways and have very different culturally accepted goals about communication as a whole. I.e. censorship hate speech etc. 9) the variety of cultures means that a global standard to filter and control communications is a kind of np complete problem. What is hate speech in one region may be free speech in another. 10) the best positioned and leveraged entities to provide the super-oversight are as of today, private for profit companies. This is likely a distasteful solution to many.
bagosm 8y ago
Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power? Their response to the ordeal is way better than what I would expect, and I blame humanity more than the platform it uses to communicate.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power? No, we’re accusing Facebook of selling ads next to a system known to prioritise sensational junk. When your ad platform rolls out before your moderation system, your priorities are wrong and you are morally culpable. There is also the problem of disparate treatment. “‘Facebook is quick on taking down swastikas, but then they don’t get to Wirathu’s hate speech where he’s saying Muslims are dogs,’ said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division” [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar-government-facebook-rohingya.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/w...
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    They tried a moderation system. An active and passive moderation system. Conservatives in the U.S. claimed it was "biased" so they stopped. Despite the fact that Facebook had clear records about disinformation campaigns and how untruthful they were. To keep the faux appearance of "intellectual curiosity" they scrapped the moderation team and now eventually the news feed. Talk about political correctness. When rolling out their platform to other countries they obviously "learned" from yesteryears experience about dealing with disinformation and decided that doing nothing was better than doing something (no matter how perceivably flawed, or how substantially flawed it actually was, which is just foolish). Boy did they learn their lesson here, at the cost of other people's lives. Fortunately, such rhetoric rarely has jarring repercussions in the U.S. (for now). Blame humanity. Some of the best engineers in the world tried to solve the problem but were only meant with whining about unfairness. No doubt had they employed enforceable, decent standards when moderating content on the implementation of their platform for other countries it would have just been dragged under the meaningless label of "censorship." So they didn't bother apparently. Foolish and privileged. But at least we treated all sides equally. It only was paid in blood.
skolemtotem 8y ago
This article talks about two issues at the same time: the first is Facebook's insidious "free basics" plan, which I'm 100% against, but the second is Facebook's role as an "accelerant" in Burma, for which I can't really blame them - censorship is pretty hard and you'll always have someone complaining.
- joeblow9999 8y ago
  It's easy to be against "free basics" when you can afford internet access.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
"A couple of hours outside Yangon, the country’s largest city, U Aye Swe, an administrator for Sin Ma Kaw village, said he was proud to oversee one of Myanmar’s 'Muslim-free' villages, which bar Muslims from spending the night, among other restrictions. 'Kalar are not welcome here because they are violent and they multiply like crazy, with so many wives and children,' he said. Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, 'I have to thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.'" [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-ethnic-cleansing.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-roh...
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, 'I have to thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.'" "'We Must Protect The Pure Aryan Bloodline,' Says Child After 9 Minutes Of Unsupervised Facebook Access" https://local.theonion.com/we-must-protect-the-pure-aryan-bloodline-says-child-1826868946 https://local.theonion.com/we-must-protect-the-pure-aryan-bl...
  - pseingatl 8y ago
    The Onion is a parody/comedy site and not real news.
    - xeromal 8y ago
      I think OP knows that.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  Facebook has nothing to do with Sin Ma Kaw having anti-Muslim laws, and Muslim free areas have been instituted by the Burmese army all over Myanmar since at least 2012. Ethnic cleansing and ethno-religious conflict with Rohingya has been happening and accelerating since before Facebook existed. Widespread hatred for Muslims existed long before widespread usage of Facebook in Myanmar. There’s also no evidence Facebook pulled Free Basics because of media pressure. Commercial reasons are obvious. Burmese now have a much larger mobile internet and phone market with better penetration, so Facebook doesn’t gain as much now.
temp-dude-87844 8y ago
There's several distinct issues intermingled in this reporting, muddying the lessons. First, there's issue of ethnic violence in Myanmar, fueled by hate speech on and off of Facebook. While the article acknowledges that Facebook's digital distribution allowed hoax stories designed to incite ethnic violence to spread very fast, it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed. It said a lot about the US' fears and anxieties when foreign agents were discovered to have been generating content to amplify sectarian divisions, but it was also remarkable how similar their products were to organic content produced by various factions of true believers within the US. If domestic agents are posting hate speech in Myanmar, the only explanation is that Myanmar is a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity. It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society. Then there's the issue of Facebook and certain websites being zero-rated on some phone networks. This is popular in countries where no organized lobby against it exists, and has been withdrawn in some places where activist groups have succeeded in framing it as a foreign company picking winners and losers. Zero-rating is the new frontier in net neutrality that was punted even in the US, where the old FCC never banned it outright, the new FCC is declining it investigate it, and telcos are vertically merging with content providers, which seems to lay the groundwork for more zero-rating to come.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society Facebook went into a troubled situation to make money and made it worse. They don’t have to solve Myanmar’s problems. But if you’re getting paid to throw fuel on a fire, you accept liability for the houses it burns down.
  - simplecomplex 8y ago
    They didn’t make it worse. The situation in Myanmar has been happening since before anyone there was using Facebook... Ethnic violence, hatred, military junta, none of it was brought about by Facebook.
ivm 8y ago
One more case of the technical progress causing a great amount of harm by being ahead of the ethical progress. "Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world".
- kodablah 8y ago
  > "Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world". That's a scary thought in several ways. At the very least it's a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Also, it robs large groups of responsible people from beneficial communication tools because of how it's used by others. It often occurs with progress and advancement though, those that have it often only see the negative side of sharing. The positive side rarely gets coverage.
  - ivm 8y ago
    "Should come before" implied shifting priorities: I didn't suggest to rob somebody of beneficial tools but to provide at least basic training before giving access to a potentially dangerous technology.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      These aren't technology trees you control in a game of Age of Empires where things are all bad or all good. There is not a single door with which you prioritize access serially. Often progress has both good and bad tenets. I am just saying on the outside we are only made aware of the bad, so we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order. In the meantime putting artificial limits on tech only benefits the powerful who can circumvent them.
      - ivm 8y ago
        > we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order I'd say we are since we have artificial limits for the technologically advanced activities like driving cars or installing electrical wiring.
- 8y ago
duxup 8y ago
I suppose division used to grant some folks power or followers is more profitable. I wish we saw similar movements to bring people together that seem as effective. I think at one point simply being able to communicate would do the good thing, I'm not sure that is the case... :(
simplecomplex 8y ago
The article presents no evidence that Facebook ended Free Basics because of media pressure. The likely reason is commercial. Many of those areas now have better internet and phone penetration, so there is less to gain for Facebook.
- bronson 8y ago
  You're speaking of presenting no evidence...?
michaelmrose 8y ago
The thrust of the article kind of seems like it wishes Facebook was a better censor so it could more aptly shape the course of the society at hand in a better fashion and its hard to imagine a more backwards perspective. Who can look at Zuckerberg and instead of thinking why would I want that guy deciding the course of my nations fate preceed to lament that he doesn't do so slightly differently.
hw 8y ago
"Users who sign up for Internet.org are required to sign up for Facebook first, and Free Basics works by not counting Facebook use against a limited data plan; therefore, if users do most browsing through Facebook, they can use the “internet” essentially for free." Sure, connecting billions of underserved people to the internet is great and all, but it's all in the name of growing Facebook's user base and numbers. Any philantrophic / good will effort that has a business agenda behind it can't really be trusted. Not to mention putting Facebook as the access vehicle and introduction to the Internet for folks who have barely or never been connected before, is like giving drugs to a new born. There are ways to get people connected to the Internet, without requiring them to "browse through Facebook", for example by spending your billions and building infrastructure. Try again, MZ.
- wmccullough 8y ago
  I think there’s something important to glean here. We’ve always seen Facebook driving trends in social media (or re-appropriating features from lesser groups). We are starting to see a near constant reactive Facebook. This is the beginning of the end for them.
  - blind 8y ago
    GetFire.net
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
      I don't understand your comment. Is this spam? Can you explain?
- amelius 8y ago
  Wouldn't it be possible to make a tunnel, such that the users can use internet, while Facebook receives essentially zero information?
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    When FB was trying to peddle "Free Basics" in India, I looked up the rules for a website to be supported, and FB demanded no communication between the user and websites be encrypted. The problem is not a technical one.
pseingatl 8y ago
It's ridiculous to cut Facebook services in Bolivia because of what's happening in Myanmar. In Bolivia, Facebook is the Internet. There's an opportunity here for a company to step into the breach. Tencent (WeChat) will ramp up in Myanmar, but Bolivia is a little far from their normal markets.
jinonoel 8y ago
>“Perhaps Facebook should consider not aggressively getting more people online through its free internet program, and on its platform, until it has fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation,” Imagine the amount of first world privilege you need to have to be able to say this with a straight face. While we're at it how about we don't spread education and vaccinations across developing countries as well, until we "fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation".

187 points by mmaanniisshh 8y ago

I’d love to hear someone’s analysis as to why these things happen. Like these major, major fuck ups by some super national organizations and governments. Is this due to scale? Lack of accountability? Perverted incentives? I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. I hate the idea but like there needs to be some sort of counterweight to supernational organizations. Local governments trying to punish them is like a game of what-a-mole.

rgbrenner 8y ago
I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. Only because you feel like your definition of human rights would win, likely because you're american (as I am). Are you still for this if it meant China was the enforcer against the US? Are you ready for them to retaliate against us for citizens speaking out about CCP actions? The role and place of government, and even the idea that it is open to criticism, is a western idea. It is not a given that western ideas will continue to prevail (in fact, democracy is on the retreat worldwide).
tyfon 8y ago
That would be the UN but with policing power. I'm not opposed to the idea either. I'd also like it to hold government ministers/officials personally responsible for a states breaches of basic human rights. But the problem lies in it's structure, accountability and execution. It would be very hard to make a stable system that was objective and neither corrupt nor possible to subvert in some way.
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  As witness the current UN: stable, but not objective, thoroughly corrupt, and constantly subverted by pretty dictators and wannabe genocides. I think giving an organization like that enforcement power over anything would be a disaster — even if it weren't an affront to every sovereign nation on Earth.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The UN is a place to talk and conduct diplomacy. It is very intentionally intended to be the minimal, reliable set of international services needed to try and keep nations diplomatic channels open.
  - tyfon 8y ago
    Agree, the UN in it's current form is a joke. I have no idea how an ideal structure for this would be, if even one could be created. "Power corrupts" is still as true as it was in 1870.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  I agree the idea has problems. But I also would like to see democratic countries band closer together, and use their economic and military power to protect democracy and human rights. We opened our markets to many unfree countries on the idea that when they became richer, they would become democratic. We were wrong on that. Instead these countries sell to us to make themselves as dictators richer, and use our money to suppress their people, and in the name of free trade, we sell them the weapons and technology to do it. And when they become rich enough, they use their new found influence to attack democracy in other countries. Free trade with the west should be the reward for being democratic, free, and a protector of human rights of your citizens. Afterall it is our freedom that made us rich... we shouldn't allow dictators to benefit from it. Dictatorship is poverty. They are linked together. And without western money, they would be forced to live in the squalor they have created for themselves. Sadly our addiction to fossil fuels is probably the biggest impediment to this. Until thats solved, we'll continue to fund some of the worst human rights abusers in exchange for oil.
tsunamifury 8y ago
This is an extraordinarily difficult situation that is developing at a very fast pace, so information to make the sort of analysis you are asking for is very difficult. As you have seen by the regional government inquests, most of our national leaders are struggling to keep up as well. Here are a few observations: 1) the smartphone has become a technology vector to the most remote areas in the world, and its natural use case is communication 2) data is expensive, so expensive that many regions can not afford it regularly. 3) connectivity infrastructure is very expensive, and many developing regions customer base do not represent the revenues to support it. 4) Facebook and other services growth depend on reliable data connectivity 5) what started out as a way to launder facebooks ad inventory profits to carriers to provide free data so that Facebook and carrier networks could expand, turned into a cultural invasion 6) now areas who had not experienced the level of connectivity that Facebook affords are using it in radical and sometimes violent ways. 7) those local communities are struggling to regulate it while the broader developed world is shocked at the results 8) it turns out each region wants to regulate this in very different ways and have very different culturally accepted goals about communication as a whole. I.e. censorship hate speech etc. 9) the variety of cultures means that a global standard to filter and control communications is a kind of np complete problem. What is hate speech in one region may be free speech in another. 10) the best positioned and leveraged entities to provide the super-oversight are as of today, private for profit companies. This is likely a distasteful solution to many.

bagosm 8y ago

Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power? Their response to the ordeal is way better than what I would expect, and I blame humanity more than the platform it uses to communicate.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power? No, we’re accusing Facebook of selling ads next to a system known to prioritise sensational junk. When your ad platform rolls out before your moderation system, your priorities are wrong and you are morally culpable. There is also the problem of disparate treatment. “‘Facebook is quick on taking down swastikas, but then they don’t get to Wirathu’s hate speech where he’s saying Muslims are dogs,’ said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division” [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar-government-facebook-rohingya.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/w...
- kadenshep 8y ago
  They tried a moderation system. An active and passive moderation system. Conservatives in the U.S. claimed it was "biased" so they stopped. Despite the fact that Facebook had clear records about disinformation campaigns and how untruthful they were. To keep the faux appearance of "intellectual curiosity" they scrapped the moderation team and now eventually the news feed. Talk about political correctness. When rolling out their platform to other countries they obviously "learned" from yesteryears experience about dealing with disinformation and decided that doing nothing was better than doing something (no matter how perceivably flawed, or how substantially flawed it actually was, which is just foolish). Boy did they learn their lesson here, at the cost of other people's lives. Fortunately, such rhetoric rarely has jarring repercussions in the U.S. (for now). Blame humanity. Some of the best engineers in the world tried to solve the problem but were only meant with whining about unfairness. No doubt had they employed enforceable, decent standards when moderating content on the implementation of their platform for other countries it would have just been dragged under the meaningless label of "censorship." So they didn't bother apparently. Foolish and privileged. But at least we treated all sides equally. It only was paid in blood.

skolemtotem 8y ago

This article talks about two issues at the same time: the first is Facebook's insidious "free basics" plan, which I'm 100% against, but the second is Facebook's role as an "accelerant" in Burma, for which I can't really blame them - censorship is pretty hard and you'll always have someone complaining.

joeblow9999 8y ago
It's easy to be against "free basics" when you can afford internet access.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

"A couple of hours outside Yangon, the country’s largest city, U Aye Swe, an administrator for Sin Ma Kaw village, said he was proud to oversee one of Myanmar’s 'Muslim-free' villages, which bar Muslims from spending the night, among other restrictions. 'Kalar are not welcome here because they are violent and they multiply like crazy, with so many wives and children,' he said. Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, 'I have to thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.'" [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-ethnic-cleansing.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-roh...

Alex3917 8y ago
> Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, 'I have to thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.'" "'We Must Protect The Pure Aryan Bloodline,' Says Child After 9 Minutes Of Unsupervised Facebook Access" https://local.theonion.com/we-must-protect-the-pure-aryan-bloodline-says-child-1826868946 https://local.theonion.com/we-must-protect-the-pure-aryan-bl...
- pseingatl 8y ago
  The Onion is a parody/comedy site and not real news.
  - xeromal 8y ago
    I think OP knows that.
simplecomplex 8y ago
Facebook has nothing to do with Sin Ma Kaw having anti-Muslim laws, and Muslim free areas have been instituted by the Burmese army all over Myanmar since at least 2012. Ethnic cleansing and ethno-religious conflict with Rohingya has been happening and accelerating since before Facebook existed. Widespread hatred for Muslims existed long before widespread usage of Facebook in Myanmar. There’s also no evidence Facebook pulled Free Basics because of media pressure. Commercial reasons are obvious. Burmese now have a much larger mobile internet and phone market with better penetration, so Facebook doesn’t gain as much now.

temp-dude-87844 8y ago

There's several distinct issues intermingled in this reporting, muddying the lessons. First, there's issue of ethnic violence in Myanmar, fueled by hate speech on and off of Facebook. While the article acknowledges that Facebook's digital distribution allowed hoax stories designed to incite ethnic violence to spread very fast, it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed. It said a lot about the US' fears and anxieties when foreign agents were discovered to have been generating content to amplify sectarian divisions, but it was also remarkable how similar their products were to organic content produced by various factions of true believers within the US. If domestic agents are posting hate speech in Myanmar, the only explanation is that Myanmar is a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity. It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society. Then there's the issue of Facebook and certain websites being zero-rated on some phone networks. This is popular in countries where no organized lobby against it exists, and has been withdrawn in some places where activist groups have succeeded in framing it as a foreign company picking winners and losers. Zero-rating is the new frontier in net neutrality that was punted even in the US, where the old FCC never banned it outright, the new FCC is declining it investigate it, and telcos are vertically merging with content providers, which seems to lay the groundwork for more zero-rating to come.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society Facebook went into a troubled situation to make money and made it worse. They don’t have to solve Myanmar’s problems. But if you’re getting paid to throw fuel on a fire, you accept liability for the houses it burns down.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  They didn’t make it worse. The situation in Myanmar has been happening since before anyone there was using Facebook... Ethnic violence, hatred, military junta, none of it was brought about by Facebook.

ivm 8y ago

One more case of the technical progress causing a great amount of harm by being ahead of the ethical progress. "Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world".

kodablah 8y ago
> "Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world". That's a scary thought in several ways. At the very least it's a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Also, it robs large groups of responsible people from beneficial communication tools because of how it's used by others. It often occurs with progress and advancement though, those that have it often only see the negative side of sharing. The positive side rarely gets coverage.
- ivm 8y ago
  "Should come before" implied shifting priorities: I didn't suggest to rob somebody of beneficial tools but to provide at least basic training before giving access to a potentially dangerous technology.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    These aren't technology trees you control in a game of Age of Empires where things are all bad or all good. There is not a single door with which you prioritize access serially. Often progress has both good and bad tenets. I am just saying on the outside we are only made aware of the bad, so we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order. In the meantime putting artificial limits on tech only benefits the powerful who can circumvent them.
    - ivm 8y ago
      > we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order I'd say we are since we have artificial limits for the technologically advanced activities like driving cars or installing electrical wiring.
8y ago

duxup 8y ago

I suppose division used to grant some folks power or followers is more profitable. I wish we saw similar movements to bring people together that seem as effective. I think at one point simply being able to communicate would do the good thing, I'm not sure that is the case... :(

simplecomplex 8y ago

The article presents no evidence that Facebook ended Free Basics because of media pressure. The likely reason is commercial. Many of those areas now have better internet and phone penetration, so there is less to gain for Facebook.

bronson 8y ago
You're speaking of presenting no evidence...?

michaelmrose 8y ago

The thrust of the article kind of seems like it wishes Facebook was a better censor so it could more aptly shape the course of the society at hand in a better fashion and its hard to imagine a more backwards perspective. Who can look at Zuckerberg and instead of thinking why would I want that guy deciding the course of my nations fate preceed to lament that he doesn't do so slightly differently.

hw 8y ago

"Users who sign up for Internet.org are required to sign up for Facebook first, and Free Basics works by not counting Facebook use against a limited data plan; therefore, if users do most browsing through Facebook, they can use the “internet” essentially for free." Sure, connecting billions of underserved people to the internet is great and all, but it's all in the name of growing Facebook's user base and numbers. Any philantrophic / good will effort that has a business agenda behind it can't really be trusted. Not to mention putting Facebook as the access vehicle and introduction to the Internet for folks who have barely or never been connected before, is like giving drugs to a new born. There are ways to get people connected to the Internet, without requiring them to "browse through Facebook", for example by spending your billions and building infrastructure. Try again, MZ.

wmccullough 8y ago
I think there’s something important to glean here. We’ve always seen Facebook driving trends in social media (or re-appropriating features from lesser groups). We are starting to see a near constant reactive Facebook. This is the beginning of the end for them.
- blind 8y ago
  GetFire.net
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    I don't understand your comment. Is this spam? Can you explain?
amelius 8y ago
Wouldn't it be possible to make a tunnel, such that the users can use internet, while Facebook receives essentially zero information?
- pritambaral 8y ago
  When FB was trying to peddle "Free Basics" in India, I looked up the rules for a website to be supported, and FB demanded no communication between the user and websites be encrypted. The problem is not a technical one.

pseingatl 8y ago

It's ridiculous to cut Facebook services in Bolivia because of what's happening in Myanmar. In Bolivia, Facebook is the Internet. There's an opportunity here for a company to step into the breach. Tencent (WeChat) will ramp up in Myanmar, but Bolivia is a little far from their normal markets.

jinonoel 8y ago

>“Perhaps Facebook should consider not aggressively getting more people online through its free internet program, and on its platform, until it has fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation,” Imagine the amount of first world privilege you need to have to be able to say this with a straight face. While we're at it how about we don't spread education and vaccinations across developing countries as well, until we "fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation".