8 ms·

No this is not Internet. It is AOL v2. It could well mean that people never get any internet.

diminoten 11y ago
Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others. You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?
- cazum 11y ago
  The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!" I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because "were doing you a favour!"
  - eropple 11y ago
    Totally. This is Facebook assuming control of what entire populations can see and hear, under the guise of charity. No effing bueno.
  - diminoten2 11y ago
    So you would literally go to these people and tell them they are going to continue to not have any way of communicating with one another or others throughout the world because what they're being offered isn't the "real" Internet? You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with because it doesn't fit your ideology?
    - cazum 11y ago
      It doesn't have to be an All Or Nothing situation. Nobody has asserted that nobody should ever provide limited internet access to developing countries. It's just that Facebooks attempt have some very serious, and potentially malicious problems, which have been stated in this thread.
      - diminoten2 11y ago
        It is an all or nothing situation. You're asserting that you would take away internet.org. Since there is no alternative, that would leave the folks who must use internet.org with nothing. I apologize for the account swapping -- HN decided I was commenting too much on my other account, and I wanted to continue our discussion while it was still fresh in both our minds.
        eropple 11y ago
        There are alternatives. Look at Google Loon.
        diminoten2 11y ago
        There are not alternatives. I recommend you look at Google Loon before citing it as an actively running alternative in India. For the people who use Internet.org, there are literally no other ways to get online.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        The problem with internet.org is it redefines "Internet" and "online" to mean "Facebook" and "Facebook". That is not the Internet, and the only thing truly "online" about it is the totally unencrypted and tracked browsing habits of the people. No number of token good-will sites or pay-to-play business sites will ever make this initiative the "Internet", and the wall of global segregation grows ever higher.
        11y ago

Semantics. internet.org gives folks the ability to connect on a global scale with others. You would take that away from them, because it doesn't fit what you understand about how a set of computers should communicate?

cazum 11y ago
The semantics are important. This could very well mean that those people won't get proper internet because "hey, what do you need that for, you've got internet.org!" I understand the "some internet is better than none" but this isn't the internet. This is internet.org On top of that, it means that Facebook gets to micromanage a populations internet usage, what they can and cannot see, with no legal oversight because "were doing you a favour!"
- eropple 11y ago
  Totally. This is Facebook assuming control of what entire populations can see and hear, under the guise of charity. No effing bueno.
- diminoten2 11y ago
  So you would literally go to these people and tell them they are going to continue to not have any way of communicating with one another or others throughout the world because what they're being offered isn't the "real" Internet? You would tell them they must continue to live isolated from one another and the rest of the world? You'd deny them access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with because it doesn't fit your ideology?
  - cazum 11y ago
    It doesn't have to be an All Or Nothing situation. Nobody has asserted that nobody should ever provide limited internet access to developing countries. It's just that Facebooks attempt have some very serious, and potentially malicious problems, which have been stated in this thread.
    - diminoten2 11y ago
      It is an all or nothing situation. You're asserting that you would take away internet.org. Since there is no alternative, that would leave the folks who must use internet.org with nothing. I apologize for the account swapping -- HN decided I was commenting too much on my other account, and I wanted to continue our discussion while it was still fresh in both our minds.
      - eropple 11y ago
        There are alternatives. Look at Google Loon.
        diminoten2 11y ago
        There are not alternatives. I recommend you look at Google Loon before citing it as an actively running alternative in India. For the people who use Internet.org, there are literally no other ways to get online.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        The problem with internet.org is it redefines "Internet" and "online" to mean "Facebook" and "Facebook". That is not the Internet, and the only thing truly "online" about it is the totally unencrypted and tracked browsing habits of the people. No number of token good-will sites or pay-to-play business sites will ever make this initiative the "Internet", and the wall of global segregation grows ever higher.
        11y ago