4 ms·
So if you are in an impoverished area your packets are different from first world packets, magically making it harder to send them to 207.241.224.2 (archive.org
by zanny 12y ago
So if you are in an impoverished area your packets are different from first world packets, magically making it harder to send them to 207.241.224.2 (archive.org) than 173.252.120.6 (facebook.com)?
No, that is not the case. Instead, Facebook will pay for you to get Internet if that is Internet that only lets you access Facebook. And that is not an Internet at all. The infrastructure, the physical reality, means that if you have any connection, you can have all connections, and in these circumstances only profit hungry greedy monsters would consider effectively blacklisting every site but their own to guarantee them revenues to show to shareholders for providing network connectivity to you - or I guess it should be more appropriately called Facebook connectivity.
- Dylan16807 12y agoThey're not blacklisting anything. The only bad thing they do is call it "internet". It's not internet access. Free access to things like wikipedia is a good thing, as long as it's not taking money away from actual free internet initiatives. Price gouging actual internet access would also be bad, but that would be someone else doing it, and I don't think it's happening here.
- sukilot 12y agoDid you know that yombinator.com o ly allows you to transmit comments on HackerNews posts, subject to heavy moderstion, not free and open internet speech?
- sukilot 12y agoI didn't know that infrastructure was free to build and maintain. I wonder why WorldCom and Global crossing went bankrupt, if they had no expenses.
- nl 12y agoI think that internet access to a site like Wikipedia is incredibly valuable to those with no internet access. If Facebook wants to pay for that, and the cost is that they also get access to Facebook then my view is that is a net good.