4 ms·

Let's encrypt and wikipedia are not-for-profit. If they charge americans $2/month and eastasians $0, then people will be outraged, and they'll find a way to ge

Let's encrypt and wikipedia are not-for-profit. If they charge americans $2/month and eastasians $0, then people will be outraged, and they'll find a way to get it for free anyway.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism those actions represent.
- earenndil 8y ago
  They have never offered the same service to an identical identity type (e.g. person/government/corporation/school are all different), but charging for one and not the other.
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
This is really a reply to "toomuchtodo," but I don't have a reply link under their post. They wrote: > I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism the actions represent. Well, obviously you can't prove a hypothetical, but the "outrage" suggested here isn't about for-profit companies funding charities. It's about being charged even minimal amounts for services. Google and Facebook do not charge users for their core services, so they are not good comparison points.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Odd that you couldn't reply to me, but HN is a strange beast. Users were paying for Whatsapp [1]. I believe that data point illustrates that users would pay $1/year for a chat service, but this is just an opinion until someone decides to stand up a new service and charges for it. [1] The evolution of WhatsApp - in rumours and revenues WhatsApp had dabbled with the subscription revenue model in 2014, which amounted to charging an annual $0.99 membership fee, and earned above $1 billion in the first nine months of instating this fee. But following their $19-billion acquisition by Facebook, they came to revoke these charges, and WhatsApp was a free ride for its one-billion-strong and counting user base again." https://yourstory.com/2017/03/how-whatsapp-makes-money/ https://yourstory.com/2017/03/how-whatsapp-makes-money/

Let's encrypt and wikipedia are not-for-profit. If they charge americans $2/month and eastasians $0, then people will be outraged, and they'll find a way to get it for free anyway.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism those actions represent.

earenndil 8y ago
They have never offered the same service to an identical identity type (e.g. person/government/corporation/school are all different), but charging for one and not the other.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

This is really a reply to "toomuchtodo," but I don't have a reply link under their post. They wrote: > I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism the actions represent. Well, obviously you can't prove a hypothetical, but the "outrage" suggested here isn't about for-profit companies funding charities. It's about being charged even minimal amounts for services. Google and Facebook do not charge users for their core services, so they are not good comparison points.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Odd that you couldn't reply to me, but HN is a strange beast. Users were paying for Whatsapp [1]. I believe that data point illustrates that users would pay $1/year for a chat service, but this is just an opinion until someone decides to stand up a new service and charges for it. [1] The evolution of WhatsApp - in rumours and revenues WhatsApp had dabbled with the subscription revenue model in 2014, which amounted to charging an annual $0.99 membership fee, and earned above $1 billion in the first nine months of instating this fee. But following their $19-billion acquisition by Facebook, they came to revoke these charges, and WhatsApp was a free ride for its one-billion-strong and counting user base again." https://yourstory.com/2017/03/how-whatsapp-makes-money/ https://yourstory.com/2017/03/how-whatsapp-makes-money/