3 ms·

"It's too expensive to make the whole internet free." Translation: "It is not lucrative enough to us to make the whole internet free. We only want you looking

by awalton 12y ago

"It's too expensive to make the whole internet free." Translation: "It is not lucrative enough to us to make the whole internet free. We only want you looking at things where we stand to make money off of you, not anyone else." Sure, Facebook wants to help connect some of the poorest people in the world, but only if it's the company that stands to make money from the proposition. Remember kids, if you're not paying, you're the product.

awalGarg 12y ago
> Remember kids, if you're not paying, you're the product. The only exceptions to this could be found on the internet (sometimes), and they are taking it away too :(
nickysielicki 12y ago
This. If Mark wanted to do something altruistic, he would not whitelist good sites, he would just blacklist Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, and others. If expensive bandwidth is what's limiting him, he can work around that. But this isn't an altruistic move. This is a business move.
lewisl9029 12y ago
> "It's too expensive to make the whole internet free." > Translation: "It is not lucrative enough to us to make the whole internet free. We only want you looking at things where we stand to make money off of you, not anyone else." There is nothing inherently wrong with a CEO trying to maximize profit for their business. In fact, that's in their job descriptions. I understand that. What I find distasteful is their dishonest marketing attempts trying to mask Internet.org as a benevolent "lets-help-the-poor" effort and as something compatible with net neutrality, when it's obvious that their goals of providing a walled-garden version of the Internet where Facebook is the gatekeeper is in conflict with net neutrality on a fundamental level. This poor, self-conflicting denial certainly isn't helping their image in my book, but judging from many of the replies on this thread, it appears they have the masses fooled.

by awalton 12y ago

awalGarg 12y ago

> Remember kids, if you're not paying, you're the product. The only exceptions to this could be found on the internet (sometimes), and they are taking it away too :(

nickysielicki 12y ago

This. If Mark wanted to do something altruistic, he would not whitelist good sites, he would just blacklist Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, and others. If expensive bandwidth is what's limiting him, he can work around that. But this isn't an altruistic move. This is a business move.

lewisl9029 12y ago

> "It's too expensive to make the whole internet free." > Translation: "It is not lucrative enough to us to make the whole internet free. We only want you looking at things where we stand to make money off of you, not anyone else." There is nothing inherently wrong with a CEO trying to maximize profit for their business. In fact, that's in their job descriptions. I understand that. What I find distasteful is their dishonest marketing attempts trying to mask Internet.org as a benevolent "lets-help-the-poor" effort and as something compatible with net neutrality, when it's obvious that their goals of providing a walled-garden version of the Internet where Facebook is the gatekeeper is in conflict with net neutrality on a fundamental level. This poor, self-conflicting denial certainly isn't helping their image in my book, but judging from many of the replies on this thread, it appears they have the masses fooled.