3 ms·

TL;DR: Zuckerberg's partnership with telecom giants, Internet.org, provides access to a fake Internet where selected services are prioritized over others. This

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.

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.