3 ms·

The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them o

The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. It's not clear if Time is aware of this distinction. They misinterpret this as philanthropy. >First, you look at a particular geographical region that’s underserved, Internet-wise, and figure out what content might be compelling enough to lure its inhabitants online. Then you gather that content up, make sure it’s in the right language and wrap it up in a slick app. Then you go to the local cell-phone providers and convince as many of them as possible that they should offer the content in your app for free, with no data charges. There you go: anybody who has a data-capable phone has Internet access—or at least access to a curated, walled sliver of the Internet—for free. So you subsidize access to your app, and this counts as getting people online? Come on Time.

magicalist 12y ago
> The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. It's not clear if Time is aware of this distinction. They misinterpret this as philanthropy. so...did you read the article? I'd suggest reading to at least the "Colonialism 2.0" section before wondering if "Time is aware of this distinction". The section heading is a pretty good clue that they are. From the article: > Ultimately, these points of view don’t exclude each other. Zuckerberg can be both enriching himself and other people, both expanding and consolidating Facebook’s dominance and saving lives, all at the same time. He’s both empowering people (by giving them Internet access) and disempowering them (by making them into consumers and marketing targets). Personally I find the article's take a lot more interesting (and probably closer to the truth) than a knee-jerk response of "zuckerberg had his human parts replaced by robot parts and so only cares about marketshare now".
skybrian 12y ago
There's a weird notion that either you're doing something completely out of charity or completely profit-driven. But the most effective ways to change the world tend to combine the two. Charities and for-profit companies both need money, so they have more in common than you think. You need to at least break even in order to scale, and making a profit is not that different. Assuming you start out as the CEO of Facebook and want to get everyone in the world at least somewhat online, is there a better way to go about it?
- kristopolous 12y ago
  It's the wrong goal. Public sanitation, clean water, weather resistant dwellings ... These are far more important than liking the latest look of some celebrity. If the focus is on the latter in the name of the former then either they are a fool or we are thought to be.
  - ndaugherty18 12y ago
    But wouldn't getting them to information, where they can learn about the things you just said, also be helpful? There is limited resources for people trying to help the world with these goals, wouldn't this at least help (not solve)?
    - cnrsvxz 12y ago
      There's no doubt that's true. The Global Village Construction Set[0] is a perfect example of how to use internet access to enable hardware construction to bring about the factors necessary to create more internet access. But critically examining whether access to facebook is even close to the optimal way to go about this is extremely important. Zuckerberg gains a huge amount of power once the majority of the world is using his service -- and this power is of a type and scope that we've never encountered before in human history. There is zero doubt that he knows this, and we're kidding ourselves by ignoring his motivations and only focusing on what appear to be the immediate benefits. We also cannot conflate the actual service being provided with our previous decades of experience of a free and neutral internet. We don't really know what dynamics we're foisting on the rest of the world with a project like this, so it's pretty important that we engage in discussions with the actual people that it would effect. Take, for instance, the fact that there are a few mesh networks being set up in Africa. Do the people implementing and communicating over these networks want Zuck's facebook-internet? Have we asked? Have we considered that a conversation with those people would lend us a perspective that's basically mandatory if are to believe that we're actually being charitable rather than just making ourselves feel charitable? This is dangerous territory we're moving into, both ethically and strategically. We're setting up power structures that we may never be able to deconstruct. [0] http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio...
ori_b 12y ago
> It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. You say that as though it's mutually exclusive. It's not. In fact, one implies the other.
justicezyx 12y ago
Grow up please. Things cannot be done by pure good wills...

magicalist 12y ago

> The idea that this is somehow motivated by unselfish interests by Zuckerberg or FB is laughable. It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. It's not clear if Time is aware of this distinction. They misinterpret this as philanthropy. so...did you read the article? I'd suggest reading to at least the "Colonialism 2.0" section before wondering if "Time is aware of this distinction". The section heading is a pretty good clue that they are. From the article: > Ultimately, these points of view don’t exclude each other. Zuckerberg can be both enriching himself and other people, both expanding and consolidating Facebook’s dominance and saving lives, all at the same time. He’s both empowering people (by giving them Internet access) and disempowering them (by making them into consumers and marketing targets). Personally I find the article's take a lot more interesting (and probably closer to the truth) than a knee-jerk response of "zuckerberg had his human parts replaced by robot parts and so only cares about marketshare now".

skybrian 12y ago

There's a weird notion that either you're doing something completely out of charity or completely profit-driven. But the most effective ways to change the world tend to combine the two. Charities and for-profit companies both need money, so they have more in common than you think. You need to at least break even in order to scale, and making a profit is not that different. Assuming you start out as the CEO of Facebook and want to get everyone in the world at least somewhat online, is there a better way to go about it?

kristopolous 12y ago
It's the wrong goal. Public sanitation, clean water, weather resistant dwellings ... These are far more important than liking the latest look of some celebrity. If the focus is on the latter in the name of the former then either they are a fool or we are thought to be.
- ndaugherty18 12y ago
  But wouldn't getting them to information, where they can learn about the things you just said, also be helpful? There is limited resources for people trying to help the world with these goals, wouldn't this at least help (not solve)?
  - cnrsvxz 12y ago
    There's no doubt that's true. The Global Village Construction Set[0] is a perfect example of how to use internet access to enable hardware construction to bring about the factors necessary to create more internet access. But critically examining whether access to facebook is even close to the optimal way to go about this is extremely important. Zuckerberg gains a huge amount of power once the majority of the world is using his service -- and this power is of a type and scope that we've never encountered before in human history. There is zero doubt that he knows this, and we're kidding ourselves by ignoring his motivations and only focusing on what appear to be the immediate benefits. We also cannot conflate the actual service being provided with our previous decades of experience of a free and neutral internet. We don't really know what dynamics we're foisting on the rest of the world with a project like this, so it's pretty important that we engage in discussions with the actual people that it would effect. Take, for instance, the fact that there are a few mesh networks being set up in Africa. Do the people implementing and communicating over these networks want Zuck's facebook-internet? Have we asked? Have we considered that a conversation with those people would lend us a perspective that's basically mandatory if are to believe that we're actually being charitable rather than just making ourselves feel charitable? This is dangerous territory we're moving into, both ethically and strategically. We're setting up power structures that we may never be able to deconstruct. [0] http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio...

ori_b 12y ago

> It's not about getting people online, it's about getting them on FB. You say that as though it's mutually exclusive. It's not. In fact, one implies the other.

justicezyx 12y ago

Grow up please. Things cannot be done by pure good wills...