5 ms·
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participation-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participat... > Any data (e.g., pr
by 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 agoSo...they can be the ones that serve ads. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?
- spicyj 11y agoFacebook doesn't serve ads on facebook.com when accessed via Internet.org.
- joelrunyon 11y ago...yet
- pen2l 11y agoWhy 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 agoDid 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.
- joelrunyon 11y agoThey're trying to control the "tube"[1] (if you will) of information. That's not to say they'll do a good or bad thing with it, but I think the ideology here is that "open access" is "better" than "controlled access" - especially when it comes to something like the internet. The analogy would be closer to the Rockefeller relationship with Oil. They controlled the entire system (and was eventually found to be a monopoly and broken up). The above comment wasn't meant to say that Facebook is going to do harm (intentional), but that it's "harmful" (for the overall internet ecosystem) for Facebook to control internet access (for close to 2B people) like this. [1] please don't take this comment down a "series of tubes."
- alandarev 11y agoI am not defending Facebook. My comment was addressed to parent's post, which was generalizing all corporations as a purely evil-doing organizations. On the other hand, I agree that we are going to see some awful things as a result of internet.org activities.
- saiya-jin 11y agoSee, corporations are highly amoral entities. not entirely, but overall when all + and - add up, they don't care about doing good, only about making profit for shareholders. And in many/most cases, doing high profit while being nice and friendly and all this is much harder than using dirty tricks and breaking rules (moral/law/whatever). From my personal view as an employee of one corp, it all comes down how people are rewarded/motivated to get things done. If short term profit is the king, morals are not so much part of the equation, resulting in all kinds of mess. Exceptions do happen, but they are what they are - exceptions...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoMaybe not evil. But surely they have NO moral compass. A big company is made of 1000's of moving parts - people. Each is in charge of a small part of the product. Imagine a company making a missile. You are in charge of the fuse port cover. What can you do to make the missile more moral? Nothing. Even if an employee is in charge of the big decisions, still no dice. No one of them can decide "Choice A makes more money, but choice B is the moral one" and make choice B without repercussion. Said repercussion usually being firing, demotion or career derailing. Then you get somebody in their position who WILL make the profit decision. Everyone in a company is responsible to the board, who are responsible to the stockholders, who are individually interested in profit only (by definition).
- x0x0 11y agoit's not particularly lucrative to sell ads against an audience who can't afford internet access My guess is they are optimizing for long term revenue, ie avoiding an indian vkontakte.
- dylanjermiah 11y agoHow do you make money? You provide a product or service in which people can choose to buy/use, if it provides enough value for the cost. If you don't think a product or service is worth the cost, don't use or purchase it.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoExactly. In this case, just abstain from internet access until it makes its way to your part of the world in a few years or decades. Just ignore that your neighbors have access.
- pen2l 11y agoYou guys are missing the point. You know that many practices, like price dumping (having preditorially low prices of things) is illegal for the obvious reasons? In a price-dumping kind of way, do you see how what Facebook is doing could be very bad?
- dylanjermiah 11y agoWhat are the 'obvious reasons'? How is what Facebook is doing 'very bad'? You seem to have skipped a lot of specifics.
- evincarofautumn 11y agoFacebook serves ads only in countries where it is actually profitable to do so. Why would this change?
- joelrunyon 11y agoYou're assuming it's not profitable to run ads in 3rd world countries? Have you tried that? You're assuming that that won't change? Countries won't gain capital influence? You don't think that might affect spending habits & advertisers won't adjust? You really want to make that bet?
- evincarofautumn 11y agoI’m not assuming anything. I’m only stating a fact. It might very well change. If people don’t have disposable income, how could it be profitable to advertise to them? But if the country itself develops a stronger economy, sure, then it may become profitable to advertise to its people. And at that point, everybody is winning.
- bad_user 11y agoFacts need references. > If people don’t have disposable income Oh, hold on there Bob, you've jumped from one assertion to another. What makes you think that people in third-world countries don't have disposable income?
- joelrunyon 11y ago> Have you tried that? You didn't answer the question. Oftentimes, other languages or undeveloped areas are MORE profitable because there's less competition. Also, I laid out out how it might actually CHANGE - which was a direct response to your question "why would it change?" Now you're asserting it very well might change? I don't understand your argument.
- crottypeter 11y agoAgree. Not only is there less competition, as the gate keeper of information you can suppress negative messages about the advertised products.
- bottled_poe 11y agoWhy do we still have a system that allows a corporation to purchase the domain "internet.org". This is clearly targeting uninformed internet users. How convenient it is that intended user group fits that description. This is mad.