4 ms·

Wait. I don't understand. Why not just give people http?

• Shank 12y ago
  It's probably akin to Facebook Zero. Facebook isn't giving everyone free reign to access the internet; they're probably paying providers to deliver certain information that is pertinent and important. Health and weather information, for instance, is unbelievably liberating to a population without information.
• aw3c2 12y ago
  They would get the wrong idea. Access to information should not be free, the internet as it happened to develop was a mistake. We must make sure we don't let the third-world make the same.
  • reitanqild 12y ago
    Meta: For anyone who didn't recognize it at first sight, this is sarcasm. Relevant such even if I and you don't necessarily agree. (If you are about to downvote parent because he is wrong, read up on sarcasm and count to ten. If you happen to think it was more irrelavant or more out-of-place than most stuff here I can certainly see that, go ahead and downvote : ) PS: This comment really shouldn't be necessary but I have seen examples lately of people failing to not only appreciate well-placed sarcasm but also recognize it, as seen by the fact that they will start arguing how the parent comment is wrong. Sarcasm, well used, is^h^h used to be a very powerful technique because of the way it can expose the stupidity of something.
    • pjc50 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law There are plenty of powerful people seriously arguing that the free internet is a bad thing.
• icebraining 12y ago
  Because that would be killing the mobile internet market, which means the provider would ask for much, much more money in exchange. In many countries, it could also be ruled as anti-competitive (dumping laws and such).