7 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere are alternatives. Look at Google Loon.
- diminoten2 11y agoThere 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 agoThe 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.
- diminoten 11y agoIt's that, or literally nothing.
- nitrogen 11y agoNot necessarily. If the internet.org initiative was truly noble, they could provide bandwidth-limited access to all of the Internet, along with an optional service or browser addon that formats pages for text-only viewing to save even more bandwidth.
- diminoten 11y agoSure, but they don't, so it's either what they currently offer or nothing.
- cazum 11y ago>It is an all or nothing situation No, it's not. A service could exist that provides this functionality without the problems Facebook has created. >You're asserting that you would take away internet.org Please find where I said this.