7 ms·

Facebook Opens Internet․Org to All Developers Due to Net Neutrality Concerns

71 points by shahocean 11y ago

dest 11y ago
"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements" No HTTPS? Really??
- dfabulich 11y ago
  Facebook does NOT have to follow this rule today in its zero-rated India service. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t... > Your service will be proxied by Internet.org. Since we cannot support SSL, TLS, or HTTPS as part of proxying, your content or service should not rely on passing or collecting encrypted information — resources that do so will not be accessible within Internet.org or will be dropped altogether. While we would prefer to support fully encrypted connections between user and website in all cases, proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities. Catch that? They can proxy HTTPS for themselves, but they won't proxy HTTPS for "third-party sites." Thus, Internet.org isn't even neutral between Facebook and other developers; Facebook gets special HTTPS treatment that nobody else can get! Related, in an interview on Scroll.in: http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-internet-org-to-developers-hoping-to-pacify-net-neutrality-critics http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-internet-o... > Q: Isn’t it strange that Internet.org wants to offer free basic services but has no email? > A: If an email provider wants to comply with the platform guidelines that we are announcing, Internet.org would be glad to have it. Well, yeah, but if that means someone would have to offer email service without HTTPS, so anybody can read my email unencrypted or even send email as me, is that even useful?
  - rjaco31 11y ago
    You would be amazed by the number of webmails that still offer plain HTTP on their login page, and yet people use them. I'd say it's better than no Internet.
    - minot 11y ago
      > and yet people use them People won't know the difference but we should. We need to find the root of the problem. So far, it seems the root of the problem is that developing nations do not have access to a fat enough pipe to the Internet backbone. Now, why do developing nations not have a fat enough pipe to the Internet backbone? What's the reason here? We should try to fix that at the same time as we try to improve connectivity. Just because I'm doing something for free does not mean I can half-ass it. People see my commitment and motivation in all things I do. So far, Facebook seems to really be interested in growth for itself as well as an effective shield against an upstart from upsetting them in the developing world. My apologies for being cynical but we really need to make the infrastructure issue a bigger priority.
      - jace 11y ago
        The pipe's fat enough. There's plenty of dark fiber. It's the last mile (wireless) that isn't cheap enough yet, because telcos want to protect themselves from being turned into dumb pipes before the users arrive -- internet.org is their smart pipe card (among similar, competing plans).
  - userbinator 11y ago
    so anybody can read my email unencrypted or even send email as me For webmail login it'd be a problem, but email is almost always sent over the Internet in plaintext; those who want encryption and authentication will be using something like PGP.
    - diafygi 11y ago
      No, the vast majority uses opportunistic encryption in transit. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/
  - macns 11y ago
    > proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities Since they're just proxying, it makes sense to abandon encryption all together, not? I mean after all, HTTPS is supposed to protect from man-in-the-middle attacks, but aren't they themselves exactly that?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      You can have HTTPS proxies which only connect to a predefined list of IPs if you want. Because this is a surveillance-value-based product, they don't want to do that. (Given the Indian govt vs Blackberry, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they had a hand in this somewhere. Very convenient if all mass political organisation goes through unencrypted facebook...)
- slimsag 11y ago
  It looks to be related to the above paragraph: “Websites that require high-bandwidth will not be included. Services should not use VoIP, video, file transfer, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos.” — Facebook points out that operators are giving up resources for the project for free, so this is a limit to prevent them totally being taken to the cleaners. Perhaps HTTPS is too heavy for the large number of users on such crippled networks?
  - cheese1756 11y ago
    Maybe the service providers are caching heavily, and that's impossible with HTTPS? That seems likely, but I don't know a ton about the protocol.
  - ripdog 11y ago
    Assuming a dumb pipe, SSL is no harder on the ISP than unencrypted traffic. It's likely that they want unencrypted because the data is then easily cacheable, drastically reducing cost on network operators.
    - will_hughes 11y ago
      Surely for network operators the cost isn't in external connectivity, its in radio channel capacity at the edge.
      - jsnell 11y ago
        In the west, sure. But that can't be generalized to all over the world. In some developing countries the internet connection costs of an operator can be very significant. High enough that it's been profitable to deploy expensive caches even for non-HTTP protocols, which account for a very small proportion of traffic. In the most extreme cases it's not just that the connectivity is expensive, it's that there's an absolute hard cap on bandwidth for a whole country, which is rationed among all the operators. No amount of money could buy a bigger portion in a sensible amount of time.
- userbinator 11y ago
  My completely-uninformed guess is that they don't want people to tunnel out to the real Internet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 Although I suppose a bit of steganography is enough... Edit: steganography, not stenography.
  - pshinghal 11y ago
    Did you mean steganography?
    - myhf 11y ago
      You can tunnel through stenography, but it's very slow.
- kriro 11y ago
  No JavaScript is also curious given their own React Native. Maybe they don't consider it "optimized for smartphones"? No SSL/TLS/HTTPS is just ridiculous and flat out unacceptable in this day and age. I'd expect a "no HTTP" clause and not the other way around. The linked technical guidelines from the original FB blogpost also seems to be dead: https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technica...
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    They don't consider it "optimized for featurephones".
  - 1234567890123 11y ago
    https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
- 1234567890123 11y ago
  They have explained the reason: [0] Your service will be proxied by Internet.org. Since we cannot support SSL, TLS, or HTTPS as part of proxying, your content or service should not rely on passing or collecting encrypted information — resources that do so will not be accessible within Internet.org or will be dropped altogether. While we would prefer to support fully encrypted connections between user and website in all cases, proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities. [0]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
- pjc50 11y ago
  No Javascript is an even more ridiculous restriction.
nphyte 11y ago
Can someone talk about why no SSL, HTTPS etc. Wth happened to we care abut your privacy?
- aestetix 11y ago
  To be fair, this is consistent with Facebook's track record on privacy...
  - aestetix 11y ago
    For whoever downvoted this comment, I would love to know why.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Incompatible with provider caching.
  - madez 11y ago
    Why not disable encryption selectively for sites where caching makes the most difference like Wikipedia and leave encryption enabled in more sensitive areas like personal communication where caching makes much less difference anyway?
pmontra 11y ago
Better than their first attempt but still not the real thing. If you want to give internet for free to some people there are no alternatives than paying them a full blown data connection with no artificial limits. I believe that my original comment of 2 weeks ago is still relevant: "Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's turn it into an open-to-all-Internet initiative (web sites, mail, etc - all protocols), with no other costs for service providers (web sites, etc) than the amount of money they're paying to get online right now. Then I'll believe you're really trying to help those poor people by giving them free access to the full Internet, not only to what you think they must be allowed to access. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about how unbiased you are about it. Thanks." (Edit: typo)
- madez 11y ago
  Facebook is a business. Don't be naive. They don't care for poor people, they care about getting money. They are even obligated to do so. Don't expect business to solve all issues for humanity, because they won't. A government is needed to take responsability we don't want to entrust business with and to do necessary things no business wants to do, and it needs to be strong to be able to do it even if business opposes.
  - user0243 11y ago
    > They are even obligated to do so. You might be pleased to hear this is actually not the case :) https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co... As far as businesses solving all issues for humanity, Facebook is (again fortunately) quite a strawman for that argument.
  - davej 11y ago
    Facebook doesn't care about poor people but Facebook is ultimately run by people making decisions and some people care about poor people.
  - matt4077 11y ago
higherpurpose 11y ago
This makes it seem more like a Internet.org is just a technical decision rather than Facebook trying to become the "new Internet" in emerging countries. However, I don't think this alleviates the net neutrality problems at all. Too many types of Internet services are being excluded, which means it will inevitably create a "two-tier" Internet. There will be the 80-percenters in India who will only have access to "info sites" and then the 20-percenters who will be able do everything else. Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it was a temporary 10-year solution. But what if this becomes permanent?
- captn3m0 11y ago
  There is also the issue that internet.org is exclusively available to Reliance customers. You want free internet? Well, you will get it, but you have to accept the shitty telecom policies (non-internet) that reliance brings with it. Reliance is also known to be trigger-happy ISP, with lots of censorship issues. (Reliance also owns a media company, and often bans torrent websites right after a release of their own films).
pastycrinkles 11y ago
I saw an article today, and it made me think right away of this whole mess; http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-to-start-hosting-other-sites-content-this-month/ http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-to...
philippnagel 11y ago
Does someone want to partner up to create the Internet.org that should have been?
- nphyte 11y ago
  That depends on what you have in mind and what principals one doesn't compromise on?
  - philippnagel 11y ago
    What principals would you like to see? I would go for something like this: · Non-profit · Only enable full access, do not monitor traffic, restrict access, etc. · Distribution off access through sim-cards (?) Thoughts?
    - nphyte 11y ago
      Well finding a sustainable affable way to make money to sustain operations is essential. Offcourse privacy is important however providing access to the non biased internet should be a priority.
      - philippnagel 11y ago
        Definitely. We should think about an innovative business model or employ traditional non-profit funding methods. You can e-mail me at phil@philippnagel.com if you wish.
        nphyte 11y ago
        my hands are full sorry. i could dedicate a few(3-5) hours a week
        philippnagel 11y ago
        I am currently just brainstorming. No need for commitment.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
If it's a choice between Wikipedia and Facebook, or nothing at all, telling poor Indians they should only be allowed to have the latter seems quite cruel. Yes, it's unfortunate they can't be given the whole Internet, but the fact they can get anything at all should be celebrated.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Nope. We train them that way the internet is scarce, closed and walled. A DSL line and a wifi router could cover a whole village and give the real deal.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    We train them that way the internet is scarce, closed and walled. The Internet used to be scarce, closed and walled in the US and Europe. People adjust to the new conditions as they develop. A DSL line and a wifi router could cover a whole village and give the real deal. You write "a DSL line" as if India wasn't a 3M km² country and with huge areas without even central electricity supply. What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India?
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      > What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India? Worthy > without central electricity supply. If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Worthy Care to say why? If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire. I pointed that out not because there wouldn't be electricity to run the DSL system, but to show how difficult it has been to run electricity supply cables. DSL would have the same problems. And it would be obsolete the day it got installed. I just don't see ADSL being anything than a more expensive and less flexible alternative to mobile Internet for their current situation.
Garbage 11y ago
Can somebody please point me to the technical guidelines section? The link mentioned[1] in the original article[2] is giving 404. [1] https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technica... [2] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet-org-platform/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet...
- 1234567890123 11y ago
  https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
- dfabulich 11y ago
  The link should be https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t... (they used "www.facebook.com" where they should have used "developers.facebook.com")
thomasfoster96 11y ago
A step in the right direction, but it seems a bit half hearted. I'm not really sure what services HTTP-only, no JavaScript and few images gets you, but it's going to be a tiny subset of what's possible for most people in countries where Internet.org is targeted. The best solution as far as I'm concerned would be to give x gigabytes of data a month away for free, regardless of the protocol or type of data being transmitted.
chisleu 11y ago
They want it unencrypted so they can snarf all of the data. You can tunnel SSL over HTTP though. App developers have no real worries, but regular content delivery via http isn't going to fly.
personjerry 11y ago
I think despite all our criticisms (especially noting that we as a community are far more aware of the consequences of net neutrality), we are missing the big picture. There is no net neutrality without the net. The idea of bringing internet access worldwide is a noble one, and though there certainly might be problems that arise in the attempt to get there, the entire Internet.org project, in my opinion, is a step forward in some fashion. Consider additionally the intentions of the project. While corporations do need to be profitable, ultimately I have the impression that Mark Zuckerberg is one of the less soulless CEOs, and I like that of all the ways he could've attempted to make more money, he chose one that has great benefits for people.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  The man that called the world "fucking idiots" for trusting him with their personal information is somehow "less soulless" than other CEO's. Somehow, that statement seems equal with, as Doug Stanhope put it, being the prettiest Denny's waitress. But this is the top voted comment at this time, so HN seems to have a very short memory.
_lce0 11y ago
> We’re building an open platform and anyone who meets these guidelines will be able to participate, They are anything but open. They have already proven that they only care about "open" to get some traction about their new platform; once they have many people using it, they will lock down the garden. open-graph anyone?
- chdir 11y ago
  More like, > We’re building a platform to open up your privacy... and decide which app is good for you.
methou 11y ago
Too sad, there's no service for China.

71 points by shahocean 11y ago

dest 11y ago

"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements" No HTTPS? Really??

dfabulich 11y ago
Facebook does NOT have to follow this rule today in its zero-rated India service. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t... > Your service will be proxied by Internet.org. Since we cannot support SSL, TLS, or HTTPS as part of proxying, your content or service should not rely on passing or collecting encrypted information — resources that do so will not be accessible within Internet.org or will be dropped altogether. While we would prefer to support fully encrypted connections between user and website in all cases, proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities. Catch that? They can proxy HTTPS for themselves, but they won't proxy HTTPS for "third-party sites." Thus, Internet.org isn't even neutral between Facebook and other developers; Facebook gets special HTTPS treatment that nobody else can get! Related, in an interview on Scroll.in: http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-internet-org-to-developers-hoping-to-pacify-net-neutrality-critics http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-internet-o... > Q: Isn’t it strange that Internet.org wants to offer free basic services but has no email? > A: If an email provider wants to comply with the platform guidelines that we are announcing, Internet.org would be glad to have it. Well, yeah, but if that means someone would have to offer email service without HTTPS, so anybody can read my email unencrypted or even send email as me, is that even useful?
- rjaco31 11y ago
  You would be amazed by the number of webmails that still offer plain HTTP on their login page, and yet people use them. I'd say it's better than no Internet.
  - minot 11y ago
    > and yet people use them People won't know the difference but we should. We need to find the root of the problem. So far, it seems the root of the problem is that developing nations do not have access to a fat enough pipe to the Internet backbone. Now, why do developing nations not have a fat enough pipe to the Internet backbone? What's the reason here? We should try to fix that at the same time as we try to improve connectivity. Just because I'm doing something for free does not mean I can half-ass it. People see my commitment and motivation in all things I do. So far, Facebook seems to really be interested in growth for itself as well as an effective shield against an upstart from upsetting them in the developing world. My apologies for being cynical but we really need to make the infrastructure issue a bigger priority.
    - jace 11y ago
      The pipe's fat enough. There's plenty of dark fiber. It's the last mile (wireless) that isn't cheap enough yet, because telcos want to protect themselves from being turned into dumb pipes before the users arrive -- internet.org is their smart pipe card (among similar, competing plans).
- userbinator 11y ago
  so anybody can read my email unencrypted or even send email as me For webmail login it'd be a problem, but email is almost always sent over the Internet in plaintext; those who want encryption and authentication will be using something like PGP.
  - diafygi 11y ago
    No, the vast majority uses opportunistic encryption in transit. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/
- macns 11y ago
  > proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities Since they're just proxying, it makes sense to abandon encryption all together, not? I mean after all, HTTPS is supposed to protect from man-in-the-middle attacks, but aren't they themselves exactly that?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    You can have HTTPS proxies which only connect to a predefined list of IPs if you want. Because this is a surveillance-value-based product, they don't want to do that. (Given the Indian govt vs Blackberry, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they had a hand in this somewhere. Very convenient if all mass political organisation goes through unencrypted facebook...)
slimsag 11y ago
It looks to be related to the above paragraph: “Websites that require high-bandwidth will not be included. Services should not use VoIP, video, file transfer, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos.” — Facebook points out that operators are giving up resources for the project for free, so this is a limit to prevent them totally being taken to the cleaners. Perhaps HTTPS is too heavy for the large number of users on such crippled networks?
- cheese1756 11y ago
  Maybe the service providers are caching heavily, and that's impossible with HTTPS? That seems likely, but I don't know a ton about the protocol.
- ripdog 11y ago
  Assuming a dumb pipe, SSL is no harder on the ISP than unencrypted traffic. It's likely that they want unencrypted because the data is then easily cacheable, drastically reducing cost on network operators.
  - will_hughes 11y ago
    Surely for network operators the cost isn't in external connectivity, its in radio channel capacity at the edge.
    - jsnell 11y ago
      In the west, sure. But that can't be generalized to all over the world. In some developing countries the internet connection costs of an operator can be very significant. High enough that it's been profitable to deploy expensive caches even for non-HTTP protocols, which account for a very small proportion of traffic. In the most extreme cases it's not just that the connectivity is expensive, it's that there's an absolute hard cap on bandwidth for a whole country, which is rationed among all the operators. No amount of money could buy a bigger portion in a sensible amount of time.
userbinator 11y ago
My completely-uninformed guess is that they don't want people to tunnel out to the real Internet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 Although I suppose a bit of steganography is enough... Edit: steganography, not stenography.
- pshinghal 11y ago
  Did you mean steganography?
  - myhf 11y ago
    You can tunnel through stenography, but it's very slow.
kriro 11y ago
No JavaScript is also curious given their own React Native. Maybe they don't consider it "optimized for smartphones"? No SSL/TLS/HTTPS is just ridiculous and flat out unacceptable in this day and age. I'd expect a "no HTTP" clause and not the other way around. The linked technical guidelines from the original FB blogpost also seems to be dead: https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technica...
- blumkvist 11y ago
  They don't consider it "optimized for featurephones".
- 1234567890123 11y ago
  https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
1234567890123 11y ago
They have explained the reason: [0] Your service will be proxied by Internet.org. Since we cannot support SSL, TLS, or HTTPS as part of proxying, your content or service should not rely on passing or collecting encrypted information — resources that do so will not be accessible within Internet.org or will be dropped altogether. While we would prefer to support fully encrypted connections between user and website in all cases, proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities. [0]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
pjc50 11y ago
No Javascript is an even more ridiculous restriction.

nphyte 11y ago

Can someone talk about why no SSL, HTTPS etc. Wth happened to we care abut your privacy?

aestetix 11y ago
To be fair, this is consistent with Facebook's track record on privacy...
- aestetix 11y ago
  For whoever downvoted this comment, I would love to know why.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Incompatible with provider caching.
- madez 11y ago
  Why not disable encryption selectively for sites where caching makes the most difference like Wikipedia and leave encryption enabled in more sensitive areas like personal communication where caching makes much less difference anyway?

pmontra 11y ago

Better than their first attempt but still not the real thing. If you want to give internet for free to some people there are no alternatives than paying them a full blown data connection with no artificial limits. I believe that my original comment of 2 weeks ago is still relevant: "Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's turn it into an open-to-all-Internet initiative (web sites, mail, etc - all protocols), with no other costs for service providers (web sites, etc) than the amount of money they're paying to get online right now. Then I'll believe you're really trying to help those poor people by giving them free access to the full Internet, not only to what you think they must be allowed to access. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about how unbiased you are about it. Thanks." (Edit: typo)

madez 11y ago
Facebook is a business. Don't be naive. They don't care for poor people, they care about getting money. They are even obligated to do so. Don't expect business to solve all issues for humanity, because they won't. A government is needed to take responsability we don't want to entrust business with and to do necessary things no business wants to do, and it needs to be strong to be able to do it even if business opposes.
- user0243 11y ago
  > They are even obligated to do so. You might be pleased to hear this is actually not the case :) https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co... As far as businesses solving all issues for humanity, Facebook is (again fortunately) quite a strawman for that argument.
- davej 11y ago
  Facebook doesn't care about poor people but Facebook is ultimately run by people making decisions and some people care about poor people.
- matt4077 11y ago

higherpurpose 11y ago

This makes it seem more like a Internet.org is just a technical decision rather than Facebook trying to become the "new Internet" in emerging countries. However, I don't think this alleviates the net neutrality problems at all. Too many types of Internet services are being excluded, which means it will inevitably create a "two-tier" Internet. There will be the 80-percenters in India who will only have access to "info sites" and then the 20-percenters who will be able do everything else. Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it was a temporary 10-year solution. But what if this becomes permanent?

captn3m0 11y ago
There is also the issue that internet.org is exclusively available to Reliance customers. You want free internet? Well, you will get it, but you have to accept the shitty telecom policies (non-internet) that reliance brings with it. Reliance is also known to be trigger-happy ISP, with lots of censorship issues. (Reliance also owns a media company, and often bans torrent websites right after a release of their own films).

pastycrinkles 11y ago

I saw an article today, and it made me think right away of this whole mess; http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-to-start-hosting-other-sites-content-this-month/ http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-to...

philippnagel 11y ago

Does someone want to partner up to create the Internet.org that should have been?

nphyte 11y ago
That depends on what you have in mind and what principals one doesn't compromise on?
- philippnagel 11y ago
  What principals would you like to see? I would go for something like this: · Non-profit · Only enable full access, do not monitor traffic, restrict access, etc. · Distribution off access through sim-cards (?) Thoughts?
  - nphyte 11y ago
    Well finding a sustainable affable way to make money to sustain operations is essential. Offcourse privacy is important however providing access to the non biased internet should be a priority.
    - philippnagel 11y ago
      Definitely. We should think about an innovative business model or employ traditional non-profit funding methods. You can e-mail me at phil@philippnagel.com if you wish.
      - nphyte 11y ago
        my hands are full sorry. i could dedicate a few(3-5) hours a week
        philippnagel 11y ago
        I am currently just brainstorming. No need for commitment.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

If it's a choice between Wikipedia and Facebook, or nothing at all, telling poor Indians they should only be allowed to have the latter seems quite cruel. Yes, it's unfortunate they can't be given the whole Internet, but the fact they can get anything at all should be celebrated.

venomsnake 11y ago
Nope. We train them that way the internet is scarce, closed and walled. A DSL line and a wifi router could cover a whole village and give the real deal.
- icebraining 11y ago
  We train them that way the internet is scarce, closed and walled. The Internet used to be scarce, closed and walled in the US and Europe. People adjust to the new conditions as they develop. A DSL line and a wifi router could cover a whole village and give the real deal. You write "a DSL line" as if India wasn't a 3M km² country and with huge areas without even central electricity supply. What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    > What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India? Worthy > without central electricity supply. If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Worthy Care to say why? If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire. I pointed that out not because there wouldn't be electricity to run the DSL system, but to show how difficult it has been to run electricity supply cables. DSL would have the same problems. And it would be obsolete the day it got installed. I just don't see ADSL being anything than a more expensive and less flexible alternative to mobile Internet for their current situation.

Garbage 11y ago

Can somebody please point me to the technical guidelines section? The link mentioned[1] in the original article[2] is giving 404. [1] https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technica... [2] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet-org-platform/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet...

1234567890123 11y ago
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
dfabulich 11y ago
The link should be https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t... (they used "www.facebook.com" where they should have used "developers.facebook.com")

thomasfoster96 11y ago

A step in the right direction, but it seems a bit half hearted. I'm not really sure what services HTTP-only, no JavaScript and few images gets you, but it's going to be a tiny subset of what's possible for most people in countries where Internet.org is targeted. The best solution as far as I'm concerned would be to give x gigabytes of data a month away for free, regardless of the protocol or type of data being transmitted.

chisleu 11y ago

They want it unencrypted so they can snarf all of the data. You can tunnel SSL over HTTP though. App developers have no real worries, but regular content delivery via http isn't going to fly.

personjerry 11y ago

I think despite all our criticisms (especially noting that we as a community are far more aware of the consequences of net neutrality), we are missing the big picture. There is no net neutrality without the net. The idea of bringing internet access worldwide is a noble one, and though there certainly might be problems that arise in the attempt to get there, the entire Internet.org project, in my opinion, is a step forward in some fashion. Consider additionally the intentions of the project. While corporations do need to be profitable, ultimately I have the impression that Mark Zuckerberg is one of the less soulless CEOs, and I like that of all the ways he could've attempted to make more money, he chose one that has great benefits for people.

anonbanker 11y ago
The man that called the world "fucking idiots" for trusting him with their personal information is somehow "less soulless" than other CEO's. Somehow, that statement seems equal with, as Doug Stanhope put it, being the prettiest Denny's waitress. But this is the top voted comment at this time, so HN seems to have a very short memory.

_lce0 11y ago

> We’re building an open platform and anyone who meets these guidelines will be able to participate, They are anything but open. They have already proven that they only care about "open" to get some traction about their new platform; once they have many people using it, they will lock down the garden. open-graph anyone?

chdir 11y ago
More like, > We’re building a platform to open up your privacy... and decide which app is good for you.

methou 11y ago

Too sad, there's no service for China.