3 ms·

Nofakeinternet.org

27 points by ghosh 11y ago

timboslice 11y ago
TL;DR: Zuckerberg's partnership with telecom giants, Internet.org, provides access to a fake Internet where selected services are prioritized over others. This scheme threatens innovation, free expression, and privacy online. It blocks many of the websites, apps, and services the world loves from being made available on equal terms. The fake Internet will also restrict access to local service providers struggling to get a foothold online.
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  That's literally a copy/paste of the first part of the web site. Why bother?
  - Gys 11y ago
    From other posts I understand that at least some people do the same as I do: check the discussion first to decide if opening the link itself is worth it. Because the link title is often cryptic (by purpose or not - sometimes the context is completely different from my knowledge). Loading a link, reading a few sentences, deciding if its useful to read more: it requires time. A sort of standard short summarize to go with each link would make reading HN more efficient to me.
- justaman 11y ago
  Yeah, but this is a _temporary_ solution that is aimed at sparking a higher quality of living in these 2nd and 3rd world countries. Fact is, they dont have the infrastructure to support services like Netflix or Facebook in its current state. You must understand the need for quality connections to places like Web-MD or Wikipedia. Given enough time, without question these places will implement net neutrality. Its just a matter of playing the cards you are dealt. p.s. Fuck Mark Zuckerberg
  - tombrossman 11y ago
    I think it is unrealistic to assume that the original few who enjoy their little walled garden will embrace net neutrality once these places have better infrastructure. Can you think of any examples of this happening? If you were a shareholder for one of the original companies would you be happy about it? Also, I don't think very highly of Mark Zuckerberg's ethics, especially with regard to users privacy, but he's a very effective leader and there's no sense getting angry with his success. It is up to governments to regulate markets, we can't expect CEOs to do anything but promote their own agenda. If you want to get mad at someone, take it out on government regulators who are corrupt or otherwise fail to promote competition.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    > Given enough time, without question these places will implement net neutrality. Then why are we still using SMTP for the majority of online communications? Once something gets entrenched, it's difficult to change at scale.
- larrymcp 11y ago
  Thanks: I too visited this comments page specifically looking for clarification! Yep, saved me some time and a little head-scratching since I couldn't glean the background info on Internet.org by reading this site.
fwn 11y ago
I don't get it. It's not that internet.org/facebook prevents anyone from doing something similar. So if you don't like it, make your own free internet.
- captn3m0 11y ago
  This should ideally be stopped by regulation. If not, we still have the right to criticize and protest against it.
  - fwn 11y ago
    That's clearly not my ideal. I can see how we first-worlders really like net neutrality and everything. I do see that we fear that our web access might get more expensive if access prioritisation is successful somewere else, but: Since we all already do have access to the internet it just appears to me to be endlessly selfish from us to make them wait 10 years to get the full internet for themselves.
    - captn3m0 11y ago
      I live in India, FWIW. My major gripe with internet.org is that its not really "for the poor". The minimum requirement for internet.org is an Android smartphone, which costs atleast 6000 INR (100 USD). If someone has the purchasing power for an Android smarthphone (over say, a dumbphone that would cost 1/6th of that), you definitely have enough to pay for data charges (which are in the range of a 2-3 USD per month at most). I used to browse internet on Opera Mini on a "pay-as-you-go" plan (something like 0.1 INR/40kb I think) and I paid less than 1 USD/month for that. My usage was certainly minimal (HN + GMail + Google News + Facebook) with images turned off. But now that I have the purchasing ability to buy a smartphone, I do have enough to pay for a costlier data plan as well (3-4 USD/month). Paying <5% of your phone cost a month for data charges is not that hard.
socalnate1 11y ago
Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.

27 points by ghosh 11y ago

TL;DR: Zuckerberg's partnership with telecom giants, Internet.org, provides access to a fake Internet where selected services are prioritized over others. This scheme threatens innovation, free expression, and privacy online. It blocks many of the websites, apps, and services the world loves from being made available on equal terms. The fake Internet will also restrict access to local service providers struggling to get a foothold online.

jgrahamc 11y ago
That's literally a copy/paste of the first part of the web site. Why bother?
- Gys 11y ago
  From other posts I understand that at least some people do the same as I do: check the discussion first to decide if opening the link itself is worth it. Because the link title is often cryptic (by purpose or not - sometimes the context is completely different from my knowledge). Loading a link, reading a few sentences, deciding if its useful to read more: it requires time. A sort of standard short summarize to go with each link would make reading HN more efficient to me.
justaman 11y ago
Yeah, but this is a _temporary_ solution that is aimed at sparking a higher quality of living in these 2nd and 3rd world countries. Fact is, they dont have the infrastructure to support services like Netflix or Facebook in its current state. You must understand the need for quality connections to places like Web-MD or Wikipedia. Given enough time, without question these places will implement net neutrality. Its just a matter of playing the cards you are dealt. p.s. Fuck Mark Zuckerberg
- tombrossman 11y ago
  I think it is unrealistic to assume that the original few who enjoy their little walled garden will embrace net neutrality once these places have better infrastructure. Can you think of any examples of this happening? If you were a shareholder for one of the original companies would you be happy about it? Also, I don't think very highly of Mark Zuckerberg's ethics, especially with regard to users privacy, but he's a very effective leader and there's no sense getting angry with his success. It is up to governments to regulate markets, we can't expect CEOs to do anything but promote their own agenda. If you want to get mad at someone, take it out on government regulators who are corrupt or otherwise fail to promote competition.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > Given enough time, without question these places will implement net neutrality. Then why are we still using SMTP for the majority of online communications? Once something gets entrenched, it's difficult to change at scale.
larrymcp 11y ago
Thanks: I too visited this comments page specifically looking for clarification! Yep, saved me some time and a little head-scratching since I couldn't glean the background info on Internet.org by reading this site.

fwn 11y ago

I don't get it. It's not that internet.org/facebook prevents anyone from doing something similar. So if you don't like it, make your own free internet.

captn3m0 11y ago
This should ideally be stopped by regulation. If not, we still have the right to criticize and protest against it.
- fwn 11y ago
  That's clearly not my ideal. I can see how we first-worlders really like net neutrality and everything. I do see that we fear that our web access might get more expensive if access prioritisation is successful somewere else, but: Since we all already do have access to the internet it just appears to me to be endlessly selfish from us to make them wait 10 years to get the full internet for themselves.
  - captn3m0 11y ago
    I live in India, FWIW. My major gripe with internet.org is that its not really "for the poor". The minimum requirement for internet.org is an Android smartphone, which costs atleast 6000 INR (100 USD). If someone has the purchasing power for an Android smarthphone (over say, a dumbphone that would cost 1/6th of that), you definitely have enough to pay for data charges (which are in the range of a 2-3 USD per month at most). I used to browse internet on Opera Mini on a "pay-as-you-go" plan (something like 0.1 INR/40kb I think) and I paid less than 1 USD/month for that. My usage was certainly minimal (HN + GMail + Google News + Facebook) with images turned off. But now that I have the purchasing ability to buy a smartphone, I do have enough to pay for a costlier data plan as well (3-4 USD/month). Paying <5% of your phone cost a month for data charges is not that hard.

socalnate1 11y ago

Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.