6 ms·

I suspect that Facebook has helped more people with their free internet initiatives than it has hurt regardless. It sucks some users got burnt due to leakage of

by Tenoke 5y ago

I suspect that Facebook has helped more people with their free internet initiatives than it has hurt regardless. It sucks some users got burnt due to leakage of paid traffic or bad communication/configuration/deal negotiation with carriers but those still seem to be just a fraction globally. I'd be interested in seeing a more in-depth analysis of the total impact of the initiave to confirm though.

osrec 5y ago
To be completely honest, I don't think this was a great deal for the users from the start. It seemed like Facebook prying on an uneducated, easily manipulated audience to increase their user base. I know that I certainly wouldn't like my view of the internet to be delivered solely through Facebook's lens...
- Tenoke 5y ago
  When the choice is no internet vs only having Facebook the latter simply gives you more options. It's not a curated news site, you can at least talk to friends for free and only join whatever groups or pages are relevant to you which is a pure improvement over not having any options.
  - osrec 5y ago
    Isn't that like saying the weirdo luring kids with candy in a playground is giving the kids options because they'll probably enjoy the candy?! I'd rather not take the candy.
    - MisterSandman 5y ago
      It's more like the weirdo giving malnourished kids in an orphanage free candy in attempt to take advantage of them and exploit them.
      - osrec 5y ago
        Dare I say, that's even worse, yet more fitting.
    - mdoms 5y ago
      No.
    - zaphirplane 5y ago
      Comparing an adult making a choice that “we” think is bad compromise Is very far form a child I mean what about car financing that seems exploitative, credit cards, coke ads, iPhone ads I mean they are over priced
- tguvot 5y ago
  this is kinda tipa of the iceberg of what fb did in this area. they also did a bunch of fiber in africa and i think south america in order to enable local internet/mobile providers. a bunch of software/hardware initiatives to allow setup wisps for cheap, etc. there is (or was) entire department dedicated to building/enabling internet/mobile infra in third world countries
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    *second world cities in third world countries Building fiber infrastructure alone doesn’t help the impoverished. If anything, it just exacerbates inequality and integrates the local elite with the first world, who then turn their back on the local poor. Globalism and imperialism are different constructs with the same ends.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      This is an asinine take. Local elites were probably already connected with the broader world. There are drove of case studies demonstrating real benefits to the poor int he global south from internet access [1]. Having access to weather info, commodity prices, and digital banking are revolutionizing small hold farming in a lot of African countries. If you know how much your crop sells for you no longer need to trust the word of the commodity trader who comes to your farm, you now have more power to negotiate. It's frankly stupid and offensive to equate internet access with imperialism. [1] https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-leapfrogging-digital-agriculture https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-leapfro...
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Imagine that. The United Nations promoting a capitalist scheme. We gave (some of) them internet, but denied them the rights to produce a vaccine in the middle of a global pandemic!!! What could possibly be more offensive than that? Not just offensive to them, or some of them, but to the entire human race. Capitalism is an absolute scourge.
- solveit 5y ago
  This comment is reasonable but the discussion lower in the thread devolved to something insane and infantilising.
asveikau 5y ago
Free Facebook is not the same as free internet.
bastardoperator 5y ago
I don't think "helped" is the proper term here. The entire premise is to get people on to facebook and to keep them engaged. Maybe that has some benefits to the user but the real benefit is to Facebook seeing that users are the product and that Facebook's value is tied to how many users are engaged.
- albert_e 5y ago
  Agree. Facebook tried this in India and backed off after vocal opposition from internet freedom groups. Many argued that these groups are being elitist in denying some semblance of internet access and connectivity to those who cannot afford it otherwise. The supporters of government initiatives went so far as to label the critics antinationals or paid by out of state actors to keep India backward. But the whole way FB planned it was that the users will have a curated and controlled view of internet based on FBs controls. In essence they wanted a large population to grow up believing Facebook is internet. Also would have given FB the power to charge various sites for the privilege of being allowed on their free plan. This is very dangerous for a democracy. Even if it is slower to reach everyone a free internet -- as in sans middlemen controlling what you can access -- is the way to go. At the time of this episode FB enjoyed a much better brand trust. Afterwards the whole 2016 election in US and FB's active and passive role in shaping public opinions has come to light and the enthusiasm for FB sponsored stuff at national scale has been tempered.

by Tenoke 5y ago

osrec 5y ago

To be completely honest, I don't think this was a great deal for the users from the start. It seemed like Facebook prying on an uneducated, easily manipulated audience to increase their user base. I know that I certainly wouldn't like my view of the internet to be delivered solely through Facebook's lens...

Tenoke 5y ago
When the choice is no internet vs only having Facebook the latter simply gives you more options. It's not a curated news site, you can at least talk to friends for free and only join whatever groups or pages are relevant to you which is a pure improvement over not having any options.
- osrec 5y ago
  Isn't that like saying the weirdo luring kids with candy in a playground is giving the kids options because they'll probably enjoy the candy?! I'd rather not take the candy.
  - MisterSandman 5y ago
    It's more like the weirdo giving malnourished kids in an orphanage free candy in attempt to take advantage of them and exploit them.
    - osrec 5y ago
      Dare I say, that's even worse, yet more fitting.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    No.
  - zaphirplane 5y ago
    Comparing an adult making a choice that “we” think is bad compromise Is very far form a child I mean what about car financing that seems exploitative, credit cards, coke ads, iPhone ads I mean they are over priced
tguvot 5y ago
this is kinda tipa of the iceberg of what fb did in this area. they also did a bunch of fiber in africa and i think south america in order to enable local internet/mobile providers. a bunch of software/hardware initiatives to allow setup wisps for cheap, etc. there is (or was) entire department dedicated to building/enabling internet/mobile infra in third world countries
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  *second world cities in third world countries Building fiber infrastructure alone doesn’t help the impoverished. If anything, it just exacerbates inequality and integrates the local elite with the first world, who then turn their back on the local poor. Globalism and imperialism are different constructs with the same ends.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    This is an asinine take. Local elites were probably already connected with the broader world. There are drove of case studies demonstrating real benefits to the poor int he global south from internet access [1]. Having access to weather info, commodity prices, and digital banking are revolutionizing small hold farming in a lot of African countries. If you know how much your crop sells for you no longer need to trust the word of the commodity trader who comes to your farm, you now have more power to negotiate. It's frankly stupid and offensive to equate internet access with imperialism. [1] https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-leapfrogging-digital-agriculture https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-leapfro...
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Imagine that. The United Nations promoting a capitalist scheme. We gave (some of) them internet, but denied them the rights to produce a vaccine in the middle of a global pandemic!!! What could possibly be more offensive than that? Not just offensive to them, or some of them, but to the entire human race. Capitalism is an absolute scourge.
solveit 5y ago
This comment is reasonable but the discussion lower in the thread devolved to something insane and infantilising.

asveikau 5y ago

Free Facebook is not the same as free internet.

bastardoperator 5y ago

I don't think "helped" is the proper term here. The entire premise is to get people on to facebook and to keep them engaged. Maybe that has some benefits to the user but the real benefit is to Facebook seeing that users are the product and that Facebook's value is tied to how many users are engaged.

albert_e 5y ago
Agree. Facebook tried this in India and backed off after vocal opposition from internet freedom groups. Many argued that these groups are being elitist in denying some semblance of internet access and connectivity to those who cannot afford it otherwise. The supporters of government initiatives went so far as to label the critics antinationals or paid by out of state actors to keep India backward. But the whole way FB planned it was that the users will have a curated and controlled view of internet based on FBs controls. In essence they wanted a large population to grow up believing Facebook is internet. Also would have given FB the power to charge various sites for the privilege of being allowed on their free plan. This is very dangerous for a democracy. Even if it is slower to reach everyone a free internet -- as in sans middlemen controlling what you can access -- is the way to go. At the time of this episode FB enjoyed a much better brand trust. Afterwards the whole 2016 election in US and FB's active and passive role in shaping public opinions has come to light and the enthusiasm for FB sponsored stuff at national scale has been tempered.