4 ms·

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 do

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.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Providing free basic internet access There is no "basic" Internet access with a limited number of sites in the same sense that one can get "basic" cable with a limited number of channels. That's not Internet access. Calling it Internet access is disingenuous on the part of Internet.org, and providing it in the first place is destructive to the long-term interests of the intended beneficiaries. What's both "good" and "right" is providing bandwidth-limited access to the entire Internet, subsidized if necessary by the local ads shown on a non-prioritized, low-bandwidth-friendly localized version of Facebook.
- niklasni1 11y ago
  Providing internet access in the 3rd world should be the same as anywhere else: Shut up and provide bandwidth.

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.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Providing free basic internet access There is no "basic" Internet access with a limited number of sites in the same sense that one can get "basic" cable with a limited number of channels. That's not Internet access. Calling it Internet access is disingenuous on the part of Internet.org, and providing it in the first place is destructive to the long-term interests of the intended beneficiaries. What's both "good" and "right" is providing bandwidth-limited access to the entire Internet, subsidized if necessary by the local ads shown on a non-prioritized, low-bandwidth-friendly localized version of Facebook.
niklasni1 11y ago
Providing internet access in the 3rd world should be the same as anywhere else: Shut up and provide bandwidth.