7 ms·

I love how they make their mission sound so humanitarian when it's really about monthly active user growth and data profiles for everyone in the world... that t

I love how they make their mission sound so humanitarian when it's really about monthly active user growth and data profiles for everyone in the world... that they can sell. This whole movement of masking profiteering as social justice is sickening.

frugalboy 6y ago
Did you miss the part about Africa getting a 37000km subsea cable that quadruples their network capacity? What does the motive matter if the end result is the same?
- spacephysics 6y ago
  Does the end justify the means? https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_end_justifies_the_means https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_end_justifies_the_means
- drcross 6y ago
  Wait a goddamn minute. FB had a chance to do something positive for the world with internet.org but they actually backed out when they were forced to obey net neutrality laws. Make no mistake about it- this is a profit seeking motive with a potential side effect of increased connectivity. You are a product to Facebook, something they sell and once consumed your privacy and rights are left fissured and broken. Don't misconstrue your relationship to them.
  - throwaway4715 6y ago
    A "potential side effect"? Don't be ridiculous. The primary purpose is increased connectivity. Will they profit off that increased connectivity? Yes. But so will a lot of others. Including many Africans who will be able to take advantage of new opportunities unlocked by connecting the continent.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    It’s not a zero sum game. Facebook making profit doesn’t mean that other companies and people won’t also profit from it.
  - oblio 6y ago
    Is the cable strictly for Facebook traffic?
- rssohan 6y ago
  Hmmm. Currently SEACOM has 500 GB/sec lit of a total capacity of 12 Tb/sec. TEAMS seems very underutilised as well. This is either a play to try and break monopoly or driver growth. Possibly a bit of both.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    True. I'd bet there's also a bit of geopolitical planning going on here as well. It will be far easier to cut african nations off from the internet if we control their access points. As with every gift from the West, the africans probably want to be a little careful about this one. Maybe make sure they maintain a few different links that are, if not controlled by the africans themselves, at least can be controlled by Brazilians, or Russians, or Chinese.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > Maybe make sure they maintain a few different links that are, if not controlled by the africans themselves, at least can be controlled by Brazilians, or Russians, or Chinese. Russia and China? The US is more trustworthy than both of them, by a lot, and if there is one thing China is good at, it is extortion.
      - bilbo0s 6y ago
        Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm only saying that the africans have had 500 years of experience "trading" with us. So I'm not sure you could get an african to say that trading with the US has been more "trustworthy" than trading with, say, Russia. I'll even go out on a limb one step further and say that we'd be hard pressed to find even black americans who would say that africa trading with the west has been, "trustworthy". I mean, maybe you could find a few here or there, but for the most part, I'm guessing they'll have their guard up when they trade with us. They'll especially be on their guard with any american who struts into africa telling them, "How ya' doing buddy? We're way more 'trustworthy' than that other guy you want to do a deal with!"
- malandrew 6y ago
  > What does the motive matter if the end result is the same? It's not even just the same. The end result is way better than what a purely ideologically motivated organization would have been likely to achieve, if anything.
Calvin02 6y ago
Doing something good in hopes of also making money seems okay, no? Is there another model that has had similar success?
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Yes. You do the thing for money and good, but instead of emphasizing the good you just say: "We're doing this mostly for money, but it also does some good and we like that too." Nobody with any sense is going to ding you for that.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Or you can even say, "we're doing this good that these people want, and this is how these people have agreed to pay us for it". Which is also fine. It's honest.
    - seph-reed 6y ago
      Honesty is rarely shiny. This seems kind of shiny.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Maybe because it bring more money by emphasizing good. So if they doing it for money, it make sense to emphasizing good.
- atlgator 6y ago
  Don't confuse the nature of all business transactions, the exchange of a valuable good/service for another between parties, for the obvious emotional manipulation that is going on lately. As a society we cannot embrace this lack of transparency from companies and then complain that capitalism doesn't work.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  All voluntary trades are beneficial for both sides. In this case FB benefits, and Africa benefits. There is no conflict to sweep under any carpet.
gberger 6y ago
Well, I mean, this is capitalism. What else do you expect? Every business "makes the world better" but also expects to turn a profit.
- atlgator 6y ago
  It isn't capitalism. It's politics.
- pjscott 6y ago
  I love it when a business makes the world better and turns a profit. They can use those profits to keep making the world better, instead of (for example) running out of money and shutting down. Or, to make it more concrete: I got some really tasty bread from a bakery this morning. I'm happy that the bakery made a profit from that, because otherwise they would have shut down years ago and then I wouldn't have been able to get fresh fancy focaccia. I wasn't exploited; I was fed.
downerending 6y ago
Meh. Arguably much of the Internet was driven by a desire to watch porn. I'll take the win anyway.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  In the 90's the main drivers of internet adoption were porn and online brokers. Streaming video technology came from the porn industry.
WalterBright 6y ago
> This whole movement of masking profiteering as social justice is sickening. Undersea cables started out as ventures by investors to make money. They made money, and the people who used them made money, and you get to communicate globally because of them. It's cheaper to communicate with someone halfway around the world on the internet than to mail them a letter, thanks to profiteers. You have all kinds of nice things because profiteers created them to make money. Including the computer you used to type in your message. As for social justice, free markets have done far more for social justice than any other system. For example, it isn't a coincidence that the success of free markets occurred at the same time as when slavery collapsed worldwide.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > "Connectivity is at the heart of our mission to give people the power to build community." This is what the parent is referring to. There is nothing bad in doing business, but I agree that it is sickening to sell it as a humanitarian endeavor. Facebook is cynical, devaluates the work of real humanitarian organizations and misleads the public on the collateral consequences of their actions. Market economies are good, I agree. Monopolistic companies like Facebook put the markets and the economy at risk.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    You seem to want a black-and-white world where monopoly and humanitarianism are always separate and easily distinguished. But often they are intermingled. This can be confusing at times, but unfortunately for our understanding the world isn't helpfully divided up into clear moral categories. This cable will carry a lot of Internet traffic and that's going to have complicated effects. On the whole, more Internet access does benefit people, though.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    > devaluates the work of real humanitarian organizations Ultimately what matters is how much good you do in the world by improving the lives of those who have it worse. That's all that matters to those that have it worse and that's the only metric that matters here. If you have to choose between, working for a humanitarian organization and helping out N people and working for a for profit enterprise and helping out 2N people, all other things being equal, you should choose the latter every since time because that makes all the difference for the additional N people helped out. The N people that don't get helped out because someone went to work for a real humanitarian organization get no benefit from the purity of motivation. Anyone who chooses otherwise isn't actually motivated by helping people. They are motivated by their ego and feeding what they think is the ideologically pure thing to do. There are few things sadder that I've witnessed than a talented person with the capacity to make the world a better place, fritter away their talent in endeavors that don't allow them to maximize the good they can do.
artsyca 6y ago
Nothing wrong with ethical sustainable investment however nobody can blame one for not trusting mega corps to do the "right" thing
Tepix 6y ago
There is no guarantee that new users will end up using Facebook. China has a strong influence due to recent strategic investments in Africa, they may end up getting a large chunk of the new users onto their systems.

frugalboy 6y ago

Did you miss the part about Africa getting a 37000km subsea cable that quadruples their network capacity? What does the motive matter if the end result is the same?

spacephysics 6y ago
Does the end justify the means? https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_end_justifies_the_means https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_end_justifies_the_means
drcross 6y ago
Wait a goddamn minute. FB had a chance to do something positive for the world with internet.org but they actually backed out when they were forced to obey net neutrality laws. Make no mistake about it- this is a profit seeking motive with a potential side effect of increased connectivity. You are a product to Facebook, something they sell and once consumed your privacy and rights are left fissured and broken. Don't misconstrue your relationship to them.
- throwaway4715 6y ago
  A "potential side effect"? Don't be ridiculous. The primary purpose is increased connectivity. Will they profit off that increased connectivity? Yes. But so will a lot of others. Including many Africans who will be able to take advantage of new opportunities unlocked by connecting the continent.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  It’s not a zero sum game. Facebook making profit doesn’t mean that other companies and people won’t also profit from it.
- oblio 6y ago
  Is the cable strictly for Facebook traffic?
rssohan 6y ago
Hmmm. Currently SEACOM has 500 GB/sec lit of a total capacity of 12 Tb/sec. TEAMS seems very underutilised as well. This is either a play to try and break monopoly or driver growth. Possibly a bit of both.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  True. I'd bet there's also a bit of geopolitical planning going on here as well. It will be far easier to cut african nations off from the internet if we control their access points. As with every gift from the West, the africans probably want to be a little careful about this one. Maybe make sure they maintain a few different links that are, if not controlled by the africans themselves, at least can be controlled by Brazilians, or Russians, or Chinese.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Maybe make sure they maintain a few different links that are, if not controlled by the africans themselves, at least can be controlled by Brazilians, or Russians, or Chinese. Russia and China? The US is more trustworthy than both of them, by a lot, and if there is one thing China is good at, it is extortion.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm only saying that the africans have had 500 years of experience "trading" with us. So I'm not sure you could get an african to say that trading with the US has been more "trustworthy" than trading with, say, Russia. I'll even go out on a limb one step further and say that we'd be hard pressed to find even black americans who would say that africa trading with the west has been, "trustworthy". I mean, maybe you could find a few here or there, but for the most part, I'm guessing they'll have their guard up when they trade with us. They'll especially be on their guard with any american who struts into africa telling them, "How ya' doing buddy? We're way more 'trustworthy' than that other guy you want to do a deal with!"
malandrew 6y ago
> What does the motive matter if the end result is the same? It's not even just the same. The end result is way better than what a purely ideologically motivated organization would have been likely to achieve, if anything.

Calvin02 6y ago

Doing something good in hopes of also making money seems okay, no? Is there another model that has had similar success?

seph-reed 6y ago
Yes. You do the thing for money and good, but instead of emphasizing the good you just say: "We're doing this mostly for money, but it also does some good and we like that too." Nobody with any sense is going to ding you for that.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Or you can even say, "we're doing this good that these people want, and this is how these people have agreed to pay us for it". Which is also fine. It's honest.
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    Honesty is rarely shiny. This seems kind of shiny.
- matz1 6y ago
  Maybe because it bring more money by emphasizing good. So if they doing it for money, it make sense to emphasizing good.
atlgator 6y ago
Don't confuse the nature of all business transactions, the exchange of a valuable good/service for another between parties, for the obvious emotional manipulation that is going on lately. As a society we cannot embrace this lack of transparency from companies and then complain that capitalism doesn't work.
BurningFrog 6y ago
All voluntary trades are beneficial for both sides. In this case FB benefits, and Africa benefits. There is no conflict to sweep under any carpet.

gberger 6y ago

Well, I mean, this is capitalism. What else do you expect? Every business "makes the world better" but also expects to turn a profit.

atlgator 6y ago
It isn't capitalism. It's politics.
pjscott 6y ago
I love it when a business makes the world better and turns a profit. They can use those profits to keep making the world better, instead of (for example) running out of money and shutting down. Or, to make it more concrete: I got some really tasty bread from a bakery this morning. I'm happy that the bakery made a profit from that, because otherwise they would have shut down years ago and then I wouldn't have been able to get fresh fancy focaccia. I wasn't exploited; I was fed.

downerending 6y ago

Meh. Arguably much of the Internet was driven by a desire to watch porn. I'll take the win anyway.

WalterBright 6y ago
In the 90's the main drivers of internet adoption were porn and online brokers. Streaming video technology came from the porn industry.

WalterBright 6y ago

> This whole movement of masking profiteering as social justice is sickening. Undersea cables started out as ventures by investors to make money. They made money, and the people who used them made money, and you get to communicate globally because of them. It's cheaper to communicate with someone halfway around the world on the internet than to mail them a letter, thanks to profiteers. You have all kinds of nice things because profiteers created them to make money. Including the computer you used to type in your message. As for social justice, free markets have done far more for social justice than any other system. For example, it isn't a coincidence that the success of free markets occurred at the same time as when slavery collapsed worldwide.

Hokusai 6y ago
> "Connectivity is at the heart of our mission to give people the power to build community." This is what the parent is referring to. There is nothing bad in doing business, but I agree that it is sickening to sell it as a humanitarian endeavor. Facebook is cynical, devaluates the work of real humanitarian organizations and misleads the public on the collateral consequences of their actions. Market economies are good, I agree. Monopolistic companies like Facebook put the markets and the economy at risk.
- skybrian 6y ago
  You seem to want a black-and-white world where monopoly and humanitarianism are always separate and easily distinguished. But often they are intermingled. This can be confusing at times, but unfortunately for our understanding the world isn't helpfully divided up into clear moral categories. This cable will carry a lot of Internet traffic and that's going to have complicated effects. On the whole, more Internet access does benefit people, though.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > devaluates the work of real humanitarian organizations Ultimately what matters is how much good you do in the world by improving the lives of those who have it worse. That's all that matters to those that have it worse and that's the only metric that matters here. If you have to choose between, working for a humanitarian organization and helping out N people and working for a for profit enterprise and helping out 2N people, all other things being equal, you should choose the latter every since time because that makes all the difference for the additional N people helped out. The N people that don't get helped out because someone went to work for a real humanitarian organization get no benefit from the purity of motivation. Anyone who chooses otherwise isn't actually motivated by helping people. They are motivated by their ego and feeding what they think is the ideologically pure thing to do. There are few things sadder that I've witnessed than a talented person with the capacity to make the world a better place, fritter away their talent in endeavors that don't allow them to maximize the good they can do.

artsyca 6y ago

Nothing wrong with ethical sustainable investment however nobody can blame one for not trusting mega corps to do the "right" thing

Tepix 6y ago

There is no guarantee that new users will end up using Facebook. China has a strong influence due to recent strategic investments in Africa, they may end up getting a large chunk of the new users onto their systems.