3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoWhat 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.