4 ms·

Yes, "Facebook for All" is not the same as "Internet for All". But, it certainly won't end there. I'm sure that many people who are users of any tech, will so

Yes, "Facebook for All" is not the same as "Internet for All". But, it certainly won't end there. I'm sure that many people who are users of any tech, will someday become makers in tech. I was a user first, before I was a builder, in any platform. First you use it. Then, you figure it out. You take it apart & study it, see similar things all around you now. Then, you repurpose it, combine it, fix it, build something better than it, etc. It's not a bad thing to get corporate sponsors underwriting basic connectivity to those who don't have any.

detcader 13y ago
[From a wider standpoint (and at the risk of stating the obvious) I think it's at least a little bit outrageous that, when people the world over lack basic human rights even under the US government, Facebook is opining about whether connection to the internet should be added to a list that is ignored and non-unanimous anyway. The type of rights that protect people from violence should be ensured to everybody first, just my opinion] How do you take apart an iPad? I think that is the point.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The type of rights that protect people from violence should be ensured to everybody first If we are scrupulous and careful never to advocate for rights that don't protect people from violence, we will never ensure any other rights, no matter how deserved they are, unless we cast everything in those terms. Like, for instance, the right to not get blown up by a terrorist. That's how the slippery slope starts. But I am helping derail the conversation.
- visakanv 13y ago
  I used to feel very strongly about these things too, but ultimately I think everybody is up to build and pursue whatever they like. We can't force other people to do things our way. We can attempt to persuade them to, or guilt-trip them to, but we can't force them to care about what we care about. That said, humans have always have had "odd" priorities that might not make sense from the lens of rational cost-benefit analysis. Venkat Rao wrote quite an interesting piece about this- about how some people genuinely prefer the occasional escapism of movies to, say, proper sanitation. We don't sit down and rationally work on our worst problems, we're aspirational, we're idealistic. People working on humanitarian projects have found that the threat of death and the promise of salvation from death DON'T actually stop people from defecating in the streets, etc. It may be that people want Facebook more than they want protection from violence. That might seem utterly crazy, but it might also be true. That said, Facebook is free to do as it pleases. C'est la vie.
  - johnvschmitt 13y ago
    Great points. Yes, Maslow's Pyramid explains why different rational people will have different priorities. But, we are not all rational all the time. And, studying emotions & psychology are indeed full of answers & puzzles as well. It's good to see the discussions on HN diverge to an even more interesting point than the OP.

detcader 13y ago

[From a wider standpoint (and at the risk of stating the obvious) I think it's at least a little bit outrageous that, when people the world over lack basic human rights even under the US government, Facebook is opining about whether connection to the internet should be added to a list that is ignored and non-unanimous anyway. The type of rights that protect people from violence should be ensured to everybody first, just my opinion] How do you take apart an iPad? I think that is the point.

saraid216 13y ago
> The type of rights that protect people from violence should be ensured to everybody first If we are scrupulous and careful never to advocate for rights that don't protect people from violence, we will never ensure any other rights, no matter how deserved they are, unless we cast everything in those terms. Like, for instance, the right to not get blown up by a terrorist. That's how the slippery slope starts. But I am helping derail the conversation.
visakanv 13y ago
I used to feel very strongly about these things too, but ultimately I think everybody is up to build and pursue whatever they like. We can't force other people to do things our way. We can attempt to persuade them to, or guilt-trip them to, but we can't force them to care about what we care about. That said, humans have always have had "odd" priorities that might not make sense from the lens of rational cost-benefit analysis. Venkat Rao wrote quite an interesting piece about this- about how some people genuinely prefer the occasional escapism of movies to, say, proper sanitation. We don't sit down and rationally work on our worst problems, we're aspirational, we're idealistic. People working on humanitarian projects have found that the threat of death and the promise of salvation from death DON'T actually stop people from defecating in the streets, etc. It may be that people want Facebook more than they want protection from violence. That might seem utterly crazy, but it might also be true. That said, Facebook is free to do as it pleases. C'est la vie.
- johnvschmitt 13y ago
  Great points. Yes, Maslow's Pyramid explains why different rational people will have different priorities. But, we are not all rational all the time. And, studying emotions & psychology are indeed full of answers & puzzles as well. It's good to see the discussions on HN diverge to an even more interesting point than the OP.