11 ms·

Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet

633 points by panarky 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago
There's a lot of back and forth between "we applaud Facebook for this initiative" and "But that's not the right way to do it" in this piece. I usually find EFF articles well written but this one was particularly painful to read and not really insightful either.
- dmix 11y ago
  If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue. In real life people tend to have nuanced and conflicted opinions about many things.
  - zatkin 11y ago
    It seems that enabling HTTPS on the Internet.org proxy is what the EFF wants out of the project.
    - pavanky 11y ago
      That is just the technical issue they are against. They also oppose the internet having singular entities acting as gatekeepers. Here is the summary from the last paragraph. We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a limited free Internet access service that is secure, *and that doesn't rely on Facebook and its partners to maintain a central list of approved sites*. Until then, Internet.org will not be living up to its promise, or its name. (emphasis mine)
      - Rambunctious 11y ago
        Although slightly more nuanced than a blanket YES/NO, it would have been more helpful if there were more concrete suggestions on acceptable process mechanisms for 'limited free Internet access'.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        "[L]imited" probably means bandwidth limited.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue I'm fine with balanced opinions but there is no need to do the back and forth multiple times through the same article.
    - geoffw8 11y ago
      I actually respected the way they did that. They're trying to make some very serious criticisms without detracting too much from the fact that Internet.org actually got off their arses to do something about the digital divide. I think its fair. They're trying to give some degree of credit where its due, as opposed to an all out attack. Its hard for me personally to agree with an all out attack piece when I'm conscious of the seemingly good intentions of the project (conspiracies aside).
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It is like if someone goes to a group of starving orphans and offers them food and board and education, but in exchange they must work. On one hand, you are helping them compared to how others treat them. On the other hand, you are exploiting them for your own gain. Even ignoring the morals of offering a bad deal to someone who only has worse deals to choose from, there is the fear that such an actor would eventually evolve to lock out others who want to help without (or with less) exploitation.
droopyEyelids 11y ago
I hear people try and describe this Internet.org in terms of how Facebook will have control over what information huge numbers of people can access. Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though. He seems to really want to give the impression that this is about helping people— and not about the power of being the filter through which all information and commerce has to flow. The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.
- pavanky 11y ago
  > The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access. This is not going to happen the way the Indian telecoms are screwing up Net Neutrality. Internet.org is only part of the problem. Indian telecoms want to charge extra for OTT (over the top) services. This includes many internet messaging (ex: whatsapp) and VOIP (ex: skype) services. Internet.org sets a bad precedent where the telecoms can come up with various packages that are "free" while charging exorbitant amounts of money for the rest of the internet.
  - billwilliams 11y ago
    Usually I'm very pro internet.org with the basis for my response being "people who can't afford internet don't care about your politics, why should we get to deprive them of useful services based on a message only we care about." And I still feel thats true. But your response is definitely the best argument against it I've seen.
  - chitresh 11y ago
    I'm all for keeping the net neutral. But let me play the devil's advocate here: When the telecoms have paid for the spectrum (there was an auction for the spectrum), how can you dictate what services they should charge for and what services they shouldn't charge for ? The spectrum is a public resource, but when the telecoms have paid for it, aren't they entitled to charge for the services they provide ?
monochromatic 11y ago
Anybody else getting a 404?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cheese1756 11y ago
  It's in maintenance mode. The homepage says that it should be online in a few minutes.
- mattryanharris 11y ago
  Yep.
- barbs 11y ago
  Here's a cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
- jupake 11y ago
  If you were in a developing country in a facebook world, this would be normal :-(
suyash 11y ago
Facebook and other companies are trying to make a fool out of people in developing words, Internet.org is trying to break the internet actually.
- ljk 11y ago
  world
billwilliams 11y ago
This article is straight up more nuanced than I was expecting.
gabeio 11y ago
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participation-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participat... > Any data (e.g., proxy requests) or reporting we provide is deemed Facebook confidential information and cannot be used by you for any advertising purposes or shared with third parties. So they are putting a giant adblock on all of the internet.org sites? How is that in any way neutral/productive/fair?
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  So...they can be the ones that serve ads. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?
  - spicyj 11y ago
    Facebook doesn't serve ads on facebook.com when accessed via Internet.org.
    - joelrunyon 11y ago
      ...yet
      - pen2l 11y ago
        Why do people assume good faith motives when talking about corporations? It should be the opposite, they're going to harm you. Sorry -- rather, the actions are amoral, the end goal is making moves that will make them more money. So it's very obvious that there's something to be had in this game, and introducing ads is one possible result.
        alandarev 11y ago
        Did Ford harm America for wanting more money? Why assume corporation = harm? Their end goal is money, not harm. Unless you prove me that money is harm is universally true.
tux 11y ago
We need a system where everything is cached what is posted on HN. Here is one more cached version; https://archive.is/SmC8U https://archive.is/SmC8U
dansoto 11y ago
...and not found :/
BorisMelnik 11y ago
This is one of those things that I don't understand, don't have time to research but just inherently don't trust because it is a corporation that I don't trust disguised as a "dot org" when I can just feel their are ulterior motives.
- gabeio 11y ago
  dot org isn't like dot edu where you have to verify anything. I actually bought a dot org it was as easy as a dot com. It's not really meant to look/be "trustworthy"...
  - BorisMelnik 11y ago
    true, you don't have to verify anything but utilizing a dot org does make several implications. maybe not here in the webdev or hacker community (we see past that) but this was a calculated maneuver by them to look a certain way.
  - bobbles 11y ago
    It was originally created for use by non-profits and then opened up to anyone, so plenty of people still have that connotation with it
  - stephenr 11y ago
    That the .org TLD is open to anyone is a shame, and that it's used like this is even worse. I know it will probably be an unpopular view here, but I actually quite like the approaches taken by Australia (where I grew up) and Thailand (where I live and run my business now) In Australia you have to be a registered non-profit to get a .org.au domain, and you have to have an ABN or ACN to get a .com.au or .net.au. In the case of commercial domains, while it isn't checked at registration, if your domain name isn't somehow related to your company/brand name, (or even if it is and you aren't using it actively) you can lose it. In Thailand, your .co.th domain name must match your company name - e.g. if you have HappyHamburger Co., Ltd, you can only register happyhamburger.co.th - this means new companies don't need to rush out and make sure they get the domain matching their company name (or even that it might be taken) to prevent squatters.
pavanky 11y ago
> By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to (portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby, cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service. In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true global Internet. IMO, this is the key argument against Internet.org. Internet needs to be decentralized to truly remain a populist medium. Facebook knowingly or unknowingly is sowing the seeds for fracturing and killing off free, unrestricted access to the internet.
- pjbrunet 11y ago
  It's a Microsoft strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish Doesn't Zuck have enough of the Internet?
  - gajeam 11y ago
    "Oh, our eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Net, We are ramping up our market share, objectives will be met. Soon our browser will be everywhere, you ain't seen nothin' yet, We embrace and we extend!" Battle Hymn of the Reorg Anonymous Microsoft employee MicroNews, the in-house newsletter http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm
  - xorcist 11y ago
    Or the AOL strategy. Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will. I can imagine Facebook would have thrived on AOL or MSN (or teletext). Zuck wouldn't have been able to start it from his college room though.
    - berkes 11y ago
      > Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will. In the end, yes, they did fail. But untill that day, they managed to stiffle progress and do great harm to otherwise good and valuable initiatives and technologies. So, even if internet.org will fail at some point in future, it has a great potential for harm untill that day.
danielmiessler 11y ago
Maybe this is just like the debate around driverless cars. "They're not perfect!", they say. "They're flawed just like anything else.", they say. Well, they don't have to be perfect; they just have to be better than humans. And it turns out that's pretty easy. So maybe rather than beat up on internet.org because it's not free as in perfection, maybe we should be happy that a billion dollar corporation is trying to do SOMETHING to help 4 billion people who can't afford the current option. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better, for those billions of people with no access to the internet, than having nothing at all. And I think they are meeting that and far above it.
- amazon_not 11y ago
  The correct solution is to make real, uncensored internet access available and affordable to the masses, not to provide a better version of the North Korean intranet for free.
  - evincarofautumn 11y ago
    There’s an important difference between “right” and “good”. Providing free basic internet access is clearly good, and internet.org is doing that. Many people argue, validly, that the manner in which they’re doing so is not right. But that’s as if I were to tell you that giving anti-malarial drugs to people is wrong, because the right thing to do is to eradicate malaria itself. That’s probably true, but the practical thing to do right now is what’s good, not necessarily what’s right. And you can work on both fronts at once: they’re orthogonal. I don’t pretend to understand the massive logistical challenges involved in implementing this, and it makes me sigh when others no more knowledgeable than myself make armchair proclamations about what should or should not be done.
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      > Providing free basic internet access is clearly good, and internet.org is doing that. If it were only so. I would have no issue with internet.org if they provided free basic internet access. They do not, and this is a VERY important distinction. Internet.org is a gated community with a gatekeeper and no security. It is like AOL or an intranet. It is by definition limited, excluding and discriminatory. It is very much not free basic internet. > But that’s as if I were to tell you that giving anti-malarial drugs to people is wrong, because the right thing to do is to eradicate malaria itself. The malaria analogy is a straw man. The resources and effort required to eradicate malaria are vastly larger than the effort and resources required to distribute anti-malaria drugs to a group of infected people. If they were the same it would obviously be both good and right to eradicate malaria. However, they are not. The effort and resources to provide a gated internet.org and the effort and resources to provide an open internet.org are the same. Thus it is both good and right to provide an open internet.org. > I don’t pretend to understand the massive logistical challenges involved in implementing this, and it makes me sigh when others no more knowledgeable than myself make armchair proclamations about what should or should not be done. Unlike you, I do know what I am talking about having made a career in the telecoms industry. Feeling good about internet.org is about as smart as feeling good about price dumping. All short turn gain for long term loss. Or if you feel like a more concrete example, it's about as smart as pissing in your pants when you are cold.
jqm 11y ago
I would feel better about this initiative if it were being carried out by a neutral party (a charitable organization for instance) rather than Facebook. As it is I don't think it's a good idea. It has the potential to undermine the real internet by trapping people in "good enough" service and the motives are highly suspect. I'm hopeful governments will tend to agree.
- 9872 11y ago
  It's providing them a free service that is by your own words, "good enough" when they currently have nothing, and you are calling that a bad thing? Come on.
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    "Good enough" is not really good enough and even if it were good enough for now, it will most definitely not be good enough in the future. If "good enough" displaces or prevents real and open internet access from becoming a reality for all users then it is a very bad thing.
    - 9872 11y ago
      >Why yes, the perfect IS the enemy of the good.
      - amazon_not 11y ago
        What point are you trying to make? For clarity, I haven't said anything about perfect. That being said "good enough" and good are two very different things, especially with internet.org defined as "good enough". Let's have internet.org offer a non-walled, non-discriminatory service and I'll be happy enough to call it good, even if it is far from perfect.
la6470 11y ago
Another rich white boys laptop for every child kind of project doomed to failure. Noble intention but little respect for the target users.
mmrasheed 11y ago
free internet.org access is not so free after all. It's philanthropy outside, but scam inside. Let me put in to context. Most of the people in developing countries use android based smartphones. And users can't control the application connections in android phones due to its creepy structure- any app can run anytime in the background. On the other hand, mobile operators mention that any traffic other than internet.org supported sites will be charged at usual price. So, when users enable their data connection in mobile devices to use internet.org free service, a bunch of apps connect to other servers to update, and/or sync. So, users end up paying for data anyway. If Facebook wants to do real philanthropy, they should do it right. Develop and distribute an android app that will disable internet communication for all the apps (user controlled) and will only connect to the free services.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Supersaiyan_IV 11y ago
One does not simply call oneself the 'Internet', and act in its name, and behalf. There's all kinds of wrong with this.
- 9872 11y ago
  No, that's pretty much the only thing I find wrong with it. And if they are willing to share the name once other groups start their own similar programs, I would even withdraw that objection.
vans 11y ago
WOW Huge bullshit on this website (internet.org). The story with Neesha tells us that her father "knows impressive tricks. But let's get Neesha online and see some real magic" OMG, of course, you need internet to live. Of course real life is not as magical as fake facebook friends. Of course, Neesha's father tricks are not as magic as internet... How condescending colonialist shit is this web site ?!
- DanBC 11y ago
  For a better example of how Internet connectivity can help people in developing nations see these Internet huts used by refugees. http://www.trust.org/slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781-b40d97df7b89 http://www.trust.org/slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781-b... > > Abdul Salam, a 47-year-old Rohingya, asks a friend in Malaysia for advice [...]. His friend Muhammad Rafiq, a Rohingya in Thae Chaung village, has a son held by traffickers, and they are raising the money to pay the ransom. Abdul Salam's question is: How can he be sure the trafficker, once paid, will let the boy go?
chdir 11y ago
> been pitched as a philanthropic initiative ... With strings attached. It's like giving someone money & telling "you can only buy products that I approve of...". (Missing fine print: we will track you and trap you into buying these for as long as we can). No matter how much they twist the motivations, given their history, I've no faith in them doing any good, except for their bank accounts. It's one company that has shown utter disregard for the privacy of their users. The primary aim of internet.org is to map and build a deep graph of every living being and bolster Facebook's monopoly. In the short term, some might applaud the "free" internet carrot but the whole concept is detrimental to innovation in the long term. Either provide "real" internet without any strings attached, or else don't be surreptitious about your intentions and claim to do it for the good of humanity. Billions of people would be happy accessing the free-but-limited internet and wouldn't have any privacy concerns. However their privacy isn't the only issue here. The problem is that these people would be unknowingly contributing to the success of the walled garden developed by FB & friends. In the future, companies aligned with them will have access to a trove of data & eyeballs. Those that aren't aligned or want to compete with them, would be shut out. This is anti-competitive. One might argue that without internet.org, these people would not have contributed anyway. However, the premise of "free" will result in a lot of paying customers to switch. And, many of those who don't have an internet connection today, might get one in the near future. One that's low speed and perhaps subsidized by the government. To understand that, you have to look at the growth rate of mobiles in 3rd world countries. The bottom of the pyramid does contribute to the success of many tier-3 cellphone manufacturers. There are people who earn less than a dollar a day but they stay connected with a mobile phone. With a connection that's not limited by any corporation. As the old saying goes, "there's no such thing as free ...". One way or the other, someone has to pay for the internet. It's not going to come out of the FB shareholders pockets. The question we need to ask is, who is actually paying for it and what's the actual cost (not literal cost) to this freebie. It would be a lot better if the government or a neutral organization like Mozilla takes up this initiative. I would be happy to contribute to an initiative that provides free or subsidized internet to the masses. An internet, where there's no restriction on which site you can visit. An internet, where nobody will track you or collect your data or re-sell it.
- DanBC 11y ago
mkagenius 11y ago
Poor people need internet and they don't care if someone spies them when they are browsing wikipedia. People making these arguments have never been to 3rd world countries, I assume. Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here. This has nothing to do with basic needs of the recipients and everything to do with cementing Facebook's stranglehold on social networking in the developing world. There's no "next step" from here that would make Internet.org a reasonable path on a community's technological development -- this is a dead end.
  - mkagenius 11y ago
    The government is not doing anything to further the internet reach - facebook is doing it, who cares if there is a vested interest as long as the benefit is much more. When you buy medicine it makes the pharmaceutical companies cement their stranglehold in medicine world.
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      Facebook is not doing anything to further the internet reach. All they are doing is furthering the reach of their walled garden. There is little to no longterm benefit from this.
      - LLWM 11y ago
        You consider wikipedia part of facebook's walled garden? Or you just don't see any benefit to providing poor people around the world with access to it?
        amazon_not 11y ago
        It's their wall and their garden. If Facebook says Wikipedia can be included in their walled garden then obviously it is part of their walled garden. Beside the above obvious point, the real point is not whether there is a benefit to providing access to Wikipedia with strings attached. The real point is this: are we giving up more than we are getting if we consent to Facebook zero rating some content and putting up walls to deny access to everything else? My personal option is that the bargain is very bad for all parties involved.
digital-rubber 11y ago
Are there still that many naive people that think 'neutral' things exist when people are involved? Wake up :o) You probably also think governments have your best interests at heart.
timwaagh 11y ago
electronic frontier foundation is non democratic, not inclusive and not the internet.
vshan 11y ago
I don't know what Zuckerberg has in mind, but in India at least, there have been literally a million[1] mails sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in favour of Net Neutrality: and hence India has taken a negative stance on Internet.org, since it sets a wrong precedent. So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff. If they are so interested in connecting the poor, then they can just allocate a certain amount of data for consumption rather than act as gatekeepers. Also, Facebook is a corporation aiming to increase their shareholders money. Why would anybody trust them with Internet.org? Wikipedia is non-profit, so it's fine with me if it's offered for free. [1] : http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/trai-receives-over-1-million-petitions-on-net-neutrality-685028 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/trai-receives-over-1-m...
- mkagenius 11y ago
  > So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff. Let the poor speak. Oh wait they can't access internet!
  - vshan 11y ago
    http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NOJGZZ6TTDS001-4G6MDSDMUTIQH0QD5LU8ULP33P http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NOJGZZ6TTDS00... Please read.
  - sanmon3186 11y ago
    Free access to Facebook wouldn't help 3rd world speak for itself. Poor are the products here and not free Facebook. Bill/Melinda Gates received one of the highest civilian award[1] in India this year, and people wholeheartedly supported it as far as I know. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/01/28/bill-and-melinda-gates-receive-indian-civilian-award/ http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/01/28/bill-and-melin...
- nomercy400 11y ago
  1 million emails out of 1.2 billion people is 0.08% of the people. I wouldn't be impressed.
amenghra 11y ago
I posted about internet.org not supporting SSL/TLS two weeks ago, didn't get any upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9493253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9493253 I'm really glad the EFF is making a broader audience aware of some of these issues.
placebo 11y ago
Not to oversimplify this (things are not black and white etc. etc.), but it seems like the world is in a constant struggle between cynicism, greed, egotism and hypocrisy on one hand vs. idealism, generosity, selflessness and integrity on the other. In many cases, the former wins. Internet.org is just another one of these cases. Hopefully, there will be enough initiatives without a hidden agenda to balance it out.
microcolonel 11y ago
I think maybe the main issue with this rhetoric is the assumption that it's any of our business what facebook does with mobile characters in somebody else's country. This is probably none of your business. That being said, it would be nice to engineer a way to meet the bandwidth and content requirements without losing cryptographic integrity, but that's of secondary importance to getting another billion people reading Wikipedia.
hectorperez 11y ago
There is an open letter signed by 65 advocacy organizations in 31 countries against Internet.org https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271 https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-m...
jasonkester 11y ago
It's the classic Seinfeld "muffin tops" problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jGeIwebvk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jGeIwebvk Giving away free stuff isn't enough. People feel entitled to the best stuff for free, not just the free stuff you gave them. And if you offer the alternative of "then don't use the free stuff we're trying to give you" all you'll do is make them more angry at you. You just can't stop people from looking a gift horse in the mouth.
- efdee 11y ago
  How would you feel about me giving your kids free cigarettes and painkillers?
  - chc 11y ago
    As far as I can tell, Facebook is offering free access to websites whose operators agree not to be burdensome on the network. That is nothing like cigarettes, and analogizing poor people to children seems a bit degrading.
aaron695 11y ago
This is pretty easy to stop. Supply the poor with open free internet. Oh wait, then you'd have to stop being a bunch of whiny privileged people and spend your own time and, god forbid some of your own money helping the poor. Helping the true poor is going to have a catch, there is no utopian society that's going to do it instead, grow up. Television, which is generally consider to be very positive in impoverished countries, especially around issues like equality, had ads. And the stations lock users down to their content often using monopolies in radio spectrum. All the while the world goes on as it always does, helping not at all.
- rjaco31 11y ago
  Then let their infrastructures at a normal pace without biasing them? Nothing wrong with that.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  I have an even easier way, lets find a hack. Lets find a way to use this pipe that Facebook is building to allow access to the wider internet. Lets make it easy, like popcorn time and then lets give it away for free.
  - userbinator 11y ago
    Popularise tunneling? It can already be done, and they can't easily stop people from sharing information between Facebook and the outside, the real Internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 What they can do, however, is severely limit the bandwidth this way; it's not net-neutral at all, but tunneling does effectively break out of the walled garden.
freen 11y ago
"You can have all the free Monsanto brand water you want, but only to irrigate Monsanto seeds. You know, the ones that require Roundup by Monsanto to grow and don't create viable seeds of their own to replant or resell. You can't drink it, and you certainly can't build your own seed business that might compete with Monsanto either." Getting any bits there and back at all is the hard and expensive part. A forum full of people who make a living because the internet is an open, p2p network, and we are really in favor of turning it into a TV with only one channel for billons of people just so Facebook can get a better ROI? Congratulations: your next startup won't be viable in third world countries and your job is safe from all those people who might start their own start up or learn to code there. Make no mistake: this is business development, not charity.
pweissbrod 11y ago
At least when netzero did this 15 years back they werent trying to pose themselves as a philanthropy...
bunkydoo 11y ago
2/3 of humanity isn't connected to the internet they say, but the problem here is that 2/3 of the population probably isn't having their basic needs met on a day to day basis. Just take for example the bathroom situation in India, let alone Africa. I don't think these people give much of a damn about getting on the internet to update their status.
- Istof 11y ago
  maybe someone with unmet basic needs would make a better use of the Internet then the average Facebook user, but that's just a guess.
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.
nwoidioticplan 11y ago
You guys don't need to take such a soft stance to protest and discuss this any further... your intellectual discussion amounts to basically masturbation. Nothing is going to get solved and you'll end up wasting your time/energy. If you are truly against this then start protesting physically by organizing hunger strikes on the streets or something otherwise this going will keep gaining favor on its own and people will be habituated. You can keep intellectually disseminating bullshit for its lack luster quality but that won't make it any better. That is all... Here is what mark Zuckerberg did: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-savior-complex-go-away http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-sa... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the... He is insulting your intelligence and you are letting him get away with it with his product. The rest is on the Indian community to prove itself properly. When will you guys wake the hell up?

633 points by panarky 11y ago

There's a lot of back and forth between "we applaud Facebook for this initiative" and "But that's not the right way to do it" in this piece. I usually find EFF articles well written but this one was particularly painful to read and not really insightful either.

dmix 11y ago
If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue. In real life people tend to have nuanced and conflicted opinions about many things.
- zatkin 11y ago
  It seems that enabling HTTPS on the Internet.org proxy is what the EFF wants out of the project.
  - pavanky 11y ago
    That is just the technical issue they are against. They also oppose the internet having singular entities acting as gatekeepers. Here is the summary from the last paragraph. We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a limited free Internet access service that is secure, *and that doesn't rely on Facebook and its partners to maintain a central list of approved sites*. Until then, Internet.org will not be living up to its promise, or its name. (emphasis mine)
    - Rambunctious 11y ago
      Although slightly more nuanced than a blanket YES/NO, it would have been more helpful if there were more concrete suggestions on acceptable process mechanisms for 'limited free Internet access'.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        "[L]imited" probably means bandwidth limited.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue I'm fine with balanced opinions but there is no need to do the back and forth multiple times through the same article.
  - geoffw8 11y ago
    I actually respected the way they did that. They're trying to make some very serious criticisms without detracting too much from the fact that Internet.org actually got off their arses to do something about the digital divide. I think its fair. They're trying to give some degree of credit where its due, as opposed to an all out attack. Its hard for me personally to agree with an all out attack piece when I'm conscious of the seemingly good intentions of the project (conspiracies aside).
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It is like if someone goes to a group of starving orphans and offers them food and board and education, but in exchange they must work. On one hand, you are helping them compared to how others treat them. On the other hand, you are exploiting them for your own gain. Even ignoring the morals of offering a bad deal to someone who only has worse deals to choose from, there is the fear that such an actor would eventually evolve to lock out others who want to help without (or with less) exploitation.

droopyEyelids 11y ago

I hear people try and describe this Internet.org in terms of how Facebook will have control over what information huge numbers of people can access. Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though. He seems to really want to give the impression that this is about helping people— and not about the power of being the filter through which all information and commerce has to flow. The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.

pavanky 11y ago
> The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access. This is not going to happen the way the Indian telecoms are screwing up Net Neutrality. Internet.org is only part of the problem. Indian telecoms want to charge extra for OTT (over the top) services. This includes many internet messaging (ex: whatsapp) and VOIP (ex: skype) services. Internet.org sets a bad precedent where the telecoms can come up with various packages that are "free" while charging exorbitant amounts of money for the rest of the internet.
- billwilliams 11y ago
  Usually I'm very pro internet.org with the basis for my response being "people who can't afford internet don't care about your politics, why should we get to deprive them of useful services based on a message only we care about." And I still feel thats true. But your response is definitely the best argument against it I've seen.
- chitresh 11y ago
  I'm all for keeping the net neutral. But let me play the devil's advocate here: When the telecoms have paid for the spectrum (there was an auction for the spectrum), how can you dictate what services they should charge for and what services they shouldn't charge for ? The spectrum is a public resource, but when the telecoms have paid for it, aren't they entitled to charge for the services they provide ?

monochromatic 11y ago

Anybody else getting a 404?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cheese1756 11y ago
It's in maintenance mode. The homepage says that it should be online in a few minutes.
mattryanharris 11y ago
Yep.
barbs 11y ago
Here's a cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
jupake 11y ago
If you were in a developing country in a facebook world, this would be normal :-(

suyash 11y ago

Facebook and other companies are trying to make a fool out of people in developing words, Internet.org is trying to break the internet actually.

ljk 11y ago
world

billwilliams 11y ago

This article is straight up more nuanced than I was expecting.

gabeio 11y ago

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participation-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participat... > Any data (e.g., proxy requests) or reporting we provide is deemed Facebook confidential information and cannot be used by you for any advertising purposes or shared with third parties. So they are putting a giant adblock on all of the internet.org sites? How is that in any way neutral/productive/fair?

joelrunyon 11y ago
So...they can be the ones that serve ads. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?
- spicyj 11y ago
  Facebook doesn't serve ads on facebook.com when accessed via Internet.org.
  - joelrunyon 11y ago
    ...yet
    - pen2l 11y ago
      Why do people assume good faith motives when talking about corporations? It should be the opposite, they're going to harm you. Sorry -- rather, the actions are amoral, the end goal is making moves that will make them more money. So it's very obvious that there's something to be had in this game, and introducing ads is one possible result.
      - alandarev 11y ago
        Did Ford harm America for wanting more money? Why assume corporation = harm? Their end goal is money, not harm. Unless you prove me that money is harm is universally true.

tux 11y ago

We need a system where everything is cached what is posted on HN. Here is one more cached version; https://archive.is/SmC8U https://archive.is/SmC8U

dansoto 11y ago

...and not found :/

BorisMelnik 11y ago

This is one of those things that I don't understand, don't have time to research but just inherently don't trust because it is a corporation that I don't trust disguised as a "dot org" when I can just feel their are ulterior motives.

gabeio 11y ago
dot org isn't like dot edu where you have to verify anything. I actually bought a dot org it was as easy as a dot com. It's not really meant to look/be "trustworthy"...
- BorisMelnik 11y ago
  true, you don't have to verify anything but utilizing a dot org does make several implications. maybe not here in the webdev or hacker community (we see past that) but this was a calculated maneuver by them to look a certain way.
- bobbles 11y ago
  It was originally created for use by non-profits and then opened up to anyone, so plenty of people still have that connotation with it
- stephenr 11y ago
  That the .org TLD is open to anyone is a shame, and that it's used like this is even worse. I know it will probably be an unpopular view here, but I actually quite like the approaches taken by Australia (where I grew up) and Thailand (where I live and run my business now) In Australia you have to be a registered non-profit to get a .org.au domain, and you have to have an ABN or ACN to get a .com.au or .net.au. In the case of commercial domains, while it isn't checked at registration, if your domain name isn't somehow related to your company/brand name, (or even if it is and you aren't using it actively) you can lose it. In Thailand, your .co.th domain name must match your company name - e.g. if you have HappyHamburger Co., Ltd, you can only register happyhamburger.co.th - this means new companies don't need to rush out and make sure they get the domain matching their company name (or even that it might be taken) to prevent squatters.

pavanky 11y ago

> By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to (portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby, cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service. In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true global Internet. IMO, this is the key argument against Internet.org. Internet needs to be decentralized to truly remain a populist medium. Facebook knowingly or unknowingly is sowing the seeds for fracturing and killing off free, unrestricted access to the internet.

pjbrunet 11y ago
It's a Microsoft strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish Doesn't Zuck have enough of the Internet?
- gajeam 11y ago
  "Oh, our eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Net, We are ramping up our market share, objectives will be met. Soon our browser will be everywhere, you ain't seen nothin' yet, We embrace and we extend!" Battle Hymn of the Reorg Anonymous Microsoft employee MicroNews, the in-house newsletter http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm
- xorcist 11y ago
  Or the AOL strategy. Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will. I can imagine Facebook would have thrived on AOL or MSN (or teletext). Zuck wouldn't have been able to start it from his college room though.
  - berkes 11y ago
    > Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will. In the end, yes, they did fail. But untill that day, they managed to stiffle progress and do great harm to otherwise good and valuable initiatives and technologies. So, even if internet.org will fail at some point in future, it has a great potential for harm untill that day.

danielmiessler 11y ago

Maybe this is just like the debate around driverless cars. "They're not perfect!", they say. "They're flawed just like anything else.", they say. Well, they don't have to be perfect; they just have to be better than humans. And it turns out that's pretty easy. So maybe rather than beat up on internet.org because it's not free as in perfection, maybe we should be happy that a billion dollar corporation is trying to do SOMETHING to help 4 billion people who can't afford the current option. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better, for those billions of people with no access to the internet, than having nothing at all. And I think they are meeting that and far above it.

amazon_not 11y ago
The correct solution is to make real, uncensored internet access available and affordable to the masses, not to provide a better version of the North Korean intranet for free.
- evincarofautumn 11y ago
  There’s an important difference between “right” and “good”. Providing free basic internet access is clearly good, and internet.org is doing that. Many people argue, validly, that the manner in which they’re doing so is not right. But that’s as if I were to tell you that giving anti-malarial drugs to people is wrong, because the right thing to do is to eradicate malaria itself. That’s probably true, but the practical thing to do right now is what’s good, not necessarily what’s right. And you can work on both fronts at once: they’re orthogonal. I don’t pretend to understand the massive logistical challenges involved in implementing this, and it makes me sigh when others no more knowledgeable than myself make armchair proclamations about what should or should not be done.
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    > Providing free basic internet access is clearly good, and internet.org is doing that. If it were only so. I would have no issue with internet.org if they provided free basic internet access. They do not, and this is a VERY important distinction. Internet.org is a gated community with a gatekeeper and no security. It is like AOL or an intranet. It is by definition limited, excluding and discriminatory. It is very much not free basic internet. > But that’s as if I were to tell you that giving anti-malarial drugs to people is wrong, because the right thing to do is to eradicate malaria itself. The malaria analogy is a straw man. The resources and effort required to eradicate malaria are vastly larger than the effort and resources required to distribute anti-malaria drugs to a group of infected people. If they were the same it would obviously be both good and right to eradicate malaria. However, they are not. The effort and resources to provide a gated internet.org and the effort and resources to provide an open internet.org are the same. Thus it is both good and right to provide an open internet.org. > I don’t pretend to understand the massive logistical challenges involved in implementing this, and it makes me sigh when others no more knowledgeable than myself make armchair proclamations about what should or should not be done. Unlike you, I do know what I am talking about having made a career in the telecoms industry. Feeling good about internet.org is about as smart as feeling good about price dumping. All short turn gain for long term loss. Or if you feel like a more concrete example, it's about as smart as pissing in your pants when you are cold.

jqm 11y ago

I would feel better about this initiative if it were being carried out by a neutral party (a charitable organization for instance) rather than Facebook. As it is I don't think it's a good idea. It has the potential to undermine the real internet by trapping people in "good enough" service and the motives are highly suspect. I'm hopeful governments will tend to agree.

9872 11y ago
It's providing them a free service that is by your own words, "good enough" when they currently have nothing, and you are calling that a bad thing? Come on.
- amazon_not 11y ago
  "Good enough" is not really good enough and even if it were good enough for now, it will most definitely not be good enough in the future. If "good enough" displaces or prevents real and open internet access from becoming a reality for all users then it is a very bad thing.
  - 9872 11y ago
    >Why yes, the perfect IS the enemy of the good.
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      What point are you trying to make? For clarity, I haven't said anything about perfect. That being said "good enough" and good are two very different things, especially with internet.org defined as "good enough". Let's have internet.org offer a non-walled, non-discriminatory service and I'll be happy enough to call it good, even if it is far from perfect.

la6470 11y ago

Another rich white boys laptop for every child kind of project doomed to failure. Noble intention but little respect for the target users.

mmrasheed 11y ago

free internet.org access is not so free after all. It's philanthropy outside, but scam inside. Let me put in to context. Most of the people in developing countries use android based smartphones. And users can't control the application connections in android phones due to its creepy structure- any app can run anytime in the background. On the other hand, mobile operators mention that any traffic other than internet.org supported sites will be charged at usual price. So, when users enable their data connection in mobile devices to use internet.org free service, a bunch of apps connect to other servers to update, and/or sync. So, users end up paying for data anyway. If Facebook wants to do real philanthropy, they should do it right. Develop and distribute an android app that will disable internet communication for all the apps (user controlled) and will only connect to the free services.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Supersaiyan_IV 11y ago

One does not simply call oneself the 'Internet', and act in its name, and behalf. There's all kinds of wrong with this.

9872 11y ago
No, that's pretty much the only thing I find wrong with it. And if they are willing to share the name once other groups start their own similar programs, I would even withdraw that objection.

vans 11y ago

WOW Huge bullshit on this website (internet.org). The story with Neesha tells us that her father "knows impressive tricks. But let's get Neesha online and see some real magic" OMG, of course, you need internet to live. Of course real life is not as magical as fake facebook friends. Of course, Neesha's father tricks are not as magic as internet... How condescending colonialist shit is this web site ?!

DanBC 11y ago
For a better example of how Internet connectivity can help people in developing nations see these Internet huts used by refugees. http://www.trust.org/slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781-b40d97df7b89 http://www.trust.org/slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781-b... > > Abdul Salam, a 47-year-old Rohingya, asks a friend in Malaysia for advice [...]. His friend Muhammad Rafiq, a Rohingya in Thae Chaung village, has a son held by traffickers, and they are raising the money to pay the ransom. Abdul Salam's question is: How can he be sure the trafficker, once paid, will let the boy go?

chdir 11y ago

> been pitched as a philanthropic initiative ... With strings attached. It's like giving someone money & telling "you can only buy products that I approve of...". (Missing fine print: we will track you and trap you into buying these for as long as we can). No matter how much they twist the motivations, given their history, I've no faith in them doing any good, except for their bank accounts. It's one company that has shown utter disregard for the privacy of their users. The primary aim of internet.org is to map and build a deep graph of every living being and bolster Facebook's monopoly. In the short term, some might applaud the "free" internet carrot but the whole concept is detrimental to innovation in the long term. Either provide "real" internet without any strings attached, or else don't be surreptitious about your intentions and claim to do it for the good of humanity. Billions of people would be happy accessing the free-but-limited internet and wouldn't have any privacy concerns. However their privacy isn't the only issue here. The problem is that these people would be unknowingly contributing to the success of the walled garden developed by FB & friends. In the future, companies aligned with them will have access to a trove of data & eyeballs. Those that aren't aligned or want to compete with them, would be shut out. This is anti-competitive. One might argue that without internet.org, these people would not have contributed anyway. However, the premise of "free" will result in a lot of paying customers to switch. And, many of those who don't have an internet connection today, might get one in the near future. One that's low speed and perhaps subsidized by the government. To understand that, you have to look at the growth rate of mobiles in 3rd world countries. The bottom of the pyramid does contribute to the success of many tier-3 cellphone manufacturers. There are people who earn less than a dollar a day but they stay connected with a mobile phone. With a connection that's not limited by any corporation. As the old saying goes, "there's no such thing as free ...". One way or the other, someone has to pay for the internet. It's not going to come out of the FB shareholders pockets. The question we need to ask is, who is actually paying for it and what's the actual cost (not literal cost) to this freebie. It would be a lot better if the government or a neutral organization like Mozilla takes up this initiative. I would be happy to contribute to an initiative that provides free or subsidized internet to the masses. An internet, where there's no restriction on which site you can visit. An internet, where nobody will track you or collect your data or re-sell it.

DanBC 11y ago

mkagenius 11y ago

Poor people need internet and they don't care if someone spies them when they are browsing wikipedia. People making these arguments have never been to 3rd world countries, I assume. Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here.

nitrogen 11y ago
Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here. This has nothing to do with basic needs of the recipients and everything to do with cementing Facebook's stranglehold on social networking in the developing world. There's no "next step" from here that would make Internet.org a reasonable path on a community's technological development -- this is a dead end.
- mkagenius 11y ago
  The government is not doing anything to further the internet reach - facebook is doing it, who cares if there is a vested interest as long as the benefit is much more. When you buy medicine it makes the pharmaceutical companies cement their stranglehold in medicine world.
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    Facebook is not doing anything to further the internet reach. All they are doing is furthering the reach of their walled garden. There is little to no longterm benefit from this.
    - LLWM 11y ago
      You consider wikipedia part of facebook's walled garden? Or you just don't see any benefit to providing poor people around the world with access to it?
      - amazon_not 11y ago
        It's their wall and their garden. If Facebook says Wikipedia can be included in their walled garden then obviously it is part of their walled garden. Beside the above obvious point, the real point is not whether there is a benefit to providing access to Wikipedia with strings attached. The real point is this: are we giving up more than we are getting if we consent to Facebook zero rating some content and putting up walls to deny access to everything else? My personal option is that the bargain is very bad for all parties involved.

digital-rubber 11y ago

Are there still that many naive people that think 'neutral' things exist when people are involved? Wake up :o) You probably also think governments have your best interests at heart.

timwaagh 11y ago

electronic frontier foundation is non democratic, not inclusive and not the internet.

vshan 11y ago

I don't know what Zuckerberg has in mind, but in India at least, there have been literally a million[1] mails sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in favour of Net Neutrality: and hence India has taken a negative stance on Internet.org, since it sets a wrong precedent. So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff. If they are so interested in connecting the poor, then they can just allocate a certain amount of data for consumption rather than act as gatekeepers. Also, Facebook is a corporation aiming to increase their shareholders money. Why would anybody trust them with Internet.org? Wikipedia is non-profit, so it's fine with me if it's offered for free. [1] : http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/trai-receives-over-1-million-petitions-on-net-neutrality-685028 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/trai-receives-over-1-m...

mkagenius 11y ago
> So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff. Let the poor speak. Oh wait they can't access internet!
- vshan 11y ago
  http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NOJGZZ6TTDS001-4G6MDSDMUTIQH0QD5LU8ULP33P http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NOJGZZ6TTDS00... Please read.
- sanmon3186 11y ago
  Free access to Facebook wouldn't help 3rd world speak for itself. Poor are the products here and not free Facebook. Bill/Melinda Gates received one of the highest civilian award[1] in India this year, and people wholeheartedly supported it as far as I know. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/01/28/bill-and-melinda-gates-receive-indian-civilian-award/ http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/01/28/bill-and-melin...
nomercy400 11y ago
1 million emails out of 1.2 billion people is 0.08% of the people. I wouldn't be impressed.

amenghra 11y ago

I posted about internet.org not supporting SSL/TLS two weeks ago, didn't get any upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9493253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9493253 I'm really glad the EFF is making a broader audience aware of some of these issues.

placebo 11y ago

Not to oversimplify this (things are not black and white etc. etc.), but it seems like the world is in a constant struggle between cynicism, greed, egotism and hypocrisy on one hand vs. idealism, generosity, selflessness and integrity on the other. In many cases, the former wins. Internet.org is just another one of these cases. Hopefully, there will be enough initiatives without a hidden agenda to balance it out.

microcolonel 11y ago

I think maybe the main issue with this rhetoric is the assumption that it's any of our business what facebook does with mobile characters in somebody else's country. This is probably none of your business. That being said, it would be nice to engineer a way to meet the bandwidth and content requirements without losing cryptographic integrity, but that's of secondary importance to getting another billion people reading Wikipedia.

hectorperez 11y ago

There is an open letter signed by 65 advocacy organizations in 31 countries against Internet.org https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271 https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-m...

jasonkester 11y ago

It's the classic Seinfeld "muffin tops" problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jGeIwebvk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jGeIwebvk Giving away free stuff isn't enough. People feel entitled to the best stuff for free, not just the free stuff you gave them. And if you offer the alternative of "then don't use the free stuff we're trying to give you" all you'll do is make them more angry at you. You just can't stop people from looking a gift horse in the mouth.

efdee 11y ago
How would you feel about me giving your kids free cigarettes and painkillers?
- chc 11y ago
  As far as I can tell, Facebook is offering free access to websites whose operators agree not to be burdensome on the network. That is nothing like cigarettes, and analogizing poor people to children seems a bit degrading.

aaron695 11y ago

This is pretty easy to stop. Supply the poor with open free internet. Oh wait, then you'd have to stop being a bunch of whiny privileged people and spend your own time and, god forbid some of your own money helping the poor. Helping the true poor is going to have a catch, there is no utopian society that's going to do it instead, grow up. Television, which is generally consider to be very positive in impoverished countries, especially around issues like equality, had ads. And the stations lock users down to their content often using monopolies in radio spectrum. All the while the world goes on as it always does, helping not at all.

rjaco31 11y ago
Then let their infrastructures at a normal pace without biasing them? Nothing wrong with that.
cmdrfred 11y ago
I have an even easier way, lets find a hack. Lets find a way to use this pipe that Facebook is building to allow access to the wider internet. Lets make it easy, like popcorn time and then lets give it away for free.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Popularise tunneling? It can already be done, and they can't easily stop people from sharing information between Facebook and the outside, the real Internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 What they can do, however, is severely limit the bandwidth this way; it's not net-neutral at all, but tunneling does effectively break out of the walled garden.

freen 11y ago

"You can have all the free Monsanto brand water you want, but only to irrigate Monsanto seeds. You know, the ones that require Roundup by Monsanto to grow and don't create viable seeds of their own to replant or resell. You can't drink it, and you certainly can't build your own seed business that might compete with Monsanto either." Getting any bits there and back at all is the hard and expensive part. A forum full of people who make a living because the internet is an open, p2p network, and we are really in favor of turning it into a TV with only one channel for billons of people just so Facebook can get a better ROI? Congratulations: your next startup won't be viable in third world countries and your job is safe from all those people who might start their own start up or learn to code there. Make no mistake: this is business development, not charity.

pweissbrod 11y ago

At least when netzero did this 15 years back they werent trying to pose themselves as a philanthropy...

bunkydoo 11y ago

2/3 of humanity isn't connected to the internet they say, but the problem here is that 2/3 of the population probably isn't having their basic needs met on a day to day basis. Just take for example the bathroom situation in India, let alone Africa. I don't think these people give much of a damn about getting on the internet to update their status.

Istof 11y ago
maybe someone with unmet basic needs would make a better use of the Internet then the average Facebook user, but that's just a guess.

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.

nwoidioticplan 11y ago

You guys don't need to take such a soft stance to protest and discuss this any further... your intellectual discussion amounts to basically masturbation. Nothing is going to get solved and you'll end up wasting your time/energy. If you are truly against this then start protesting physically by organizing hunger strikes on the streets or something otherwise this going will keep gaining favor on its own and people will be habituated. You can keep intellectually disseminating bullshit for its lack luster quality but that won't make it any better. That is all... Here is what mark Zuckerberg did: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-savior-complex-go-away http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/22/why-wont-white-sa... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the... He is insulting your intelligence and you are letting him get away with it with his product. The rest is on the Indian community to prove itself properly. When will you guys wake the hell up?