11 ms·

Just, no. This is frightening on many levels. A facebook plane? To get people on facebook, right? To get them on the internet is secondary to Zuckerbergs goals

Just, no. This is frightening on many levels. A facebook plane? To get people on facebook, right? To get them on the internet is secondary to Zuckerbergs goals here, lets be honest. A walled garden? Come on. It should be the whole internet or they shouldn't even bother. A walled garden, with no security protocols, with the intention of getting the entire world on facebook? Not cool.

melling 11y ago
Yes. Most people and companies have to justify their extensive time and boat loads of money spent. He wants to grow his business and he's willing to invest to do it. If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jlas 11y ago
  How about Coca Cola's Skype machine: http://youtu.be/zlA9tXYxD8g http://youtu.be/zlA9tXYxD8g
- oscargrouch 11y ago
  > If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy? If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products , but only Coca Cola trucks could use the roads - FTFY Now that doesnt look so good, does it?
  - melling 11y ago
    Internet.org isn't for only Facebook, right? So, the question is are you an idiot or a troll?
    - visarga 11y ago
      What's to stop one of the participating websites to offer a web proxy, so people could browse any website? If they ban proxies, it will be like the Great firewall of China
    - oscargrouch 11y ago
      Oh you are right, Facebook plus a bunch of friends right? But thats the "internet" right? Facebook just added some sites, so people couldnt say "but its just Facebook" guess what.. people are not stupid, it is just facebook, and something else so we can think that is not "just facebook" But if you think is right to train people that are not used to the internet that the internet is facebook, just for the facebook´s sake, and that this is a good thing?! If this project were really serious they would give full access to people in need, so they can have plenty of access to knowledge to improve their own lives...or what the ads will do to them? And not to be just a facebook catle, so they can show more ads to more people, and increase their market value in the stock market and pleased wall street with more people using facebook.. if that is not plain evil, i dont know what is. Release the full internet to people, or just dump this whole project in the trash where it belongs.
      - melling 11y ago
        People do have the option of not using it. Giving people nothing without a say in the matter seems wrong. Other organizations are free to bring more of the Internet. Google is working on solutions too. It seems wrong to criticise others when you are offering nothing better.
    - dang 11y ago
      > So, the question is are you an idiot or a troll? Please don't do this here.
  - baddox 11y ago
    No, that still looks pretty good, because some people want to buy Coca Cola.
    - rosser 11y ago
      They might also want to buy, I don't know, bread. Should the bread company have to build their own roads, too? That's a better world, how exactly? And what about the people who don't want to buy Coca Cola? Should they get to buy nothing?
      - baddox 11y ago
        But those roads were already nonexistent, and their nonexistence is not affected by the existence of Coca Cola roads. In this hypothetical, we are comparing a world with no roads to a world with roads to deliver Coca Cola. Since some people like Coca Cola, I find the latter world preferable.
mcbuilder 11y ago
That's right, only people in first world countries should get to have Faceboook!
mcbuilder 11y ago
That's right, only people in first world countries should get to have Faceboook!
jmstout 11y ago
What if it's the other way around? What if the smart and passionate folks at Facebook really do just want to get the internet to the rest of the world, and this is the way they can justify doing so? They are a public company, after all. They have to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, or at least appear to do so...
- kunai 11y ago
  The fact that going public always tends to make a company's contributions to society less altruistic and turn the ethos of the company into "moar profitz foar de shaerhoaldurs" raises some fairly damning questions about our capital system and its tendency towards greed and stagnation.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
    Is this really the fault of the financial system? In some respects I believe 'economics' is a verb, so the fault -if there is any- lies with the agents enacting the verb, that is to say: people. Humans, groups of them even, certainly have a tendency to produce and accumulate all sorts of things being their survival needs and go on to trade them. This raises all sorts of concerns and has cause many a lot of stress. Blaming 'capital' seems fairly erroneous. Deirdre Mccloskey, in her book 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World' has a very convincing go at turning the idea into a fallacy. The accumulation and use of capital isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. How much good has come from our desire to pool resources. Also, it seems to me we tend to forget what the word 'corporation' means, literally "any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body". Certainly the other more obvious definition of the word includes that thing about "having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members", though me must remember that the words "an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law" come immediately prior. If people lose faith in a "company" it will rapidly cease to exist, or at the very lease must drastically change in order to continue. And yes, I acknowledge we are, probably to a greater extend than we typically realise, products of our environment, products of the societal structures, and built environs, we find ourselves in, and that this makes it very messy to try to discern cause and effect, and to apportion blame. I guess I'm just sceptical of apportioning blame, I don't believe it's particularly helpful. Maybe this comment is a bit incoherent. I often find myself writing comments then not posting them because I can't seem to make a point without contradicting, or undermining, my own writing. Maybe my point is that things probably aren't as simple, as clear cut, as we think. Maybe that's why some people study the liberal arts and sciences and go on to write entire volumes on these sorts of topics.
baddox 11y ago
How is the world with no Facebook plane in any way better than the world with a Facebook plane that provides Facebook access? If you don't want Facebook access, or you already have it, the two worlds are indistinguishable.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. Even ignoring the massive man-in-the-middle attack problems from running old phones on a proxy, Facebook is positioning themselves to control exclusive access to large number of users for websites. You could argue that Google already does this - but Google has competitors that users could switch to in a heartbeat. Internet.org users don't have options, and websites need to pander to Facebook to be in that walled garden. It also makes it easier for third world countries to censor the internet. In the end, this is damaging to the open internet ecosystem. Facebook could have just implemented a rate-limited or data capped system like other ISPs, but they opted to create a more restrictive system that gives them more power.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Are you okay with Comcast doing IP shaping and charging Netflix? If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. That's why it's a false dichotomy. Internet.org could very easily be rate and data capped alternatives. >connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access. -Internet.org This would give them monopsonic control over the internet.
      - nostalgiac 11y ago
        > If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. Sorry that is extremely far from the truth. Any of the other major ISPs' would leap at the chance to guzzle up these customers if there was no other competition.

melling 11y ago

Yes. Most people and companies have to justify their extensive time and boat loads of money spent. He wants to grow his business and he's willing to invest to do it. If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jlas 11y ago
How about Coca Cola's Skype machine: http://youtu.be/zlA9tXYxD8g http://youtu.be/zlA9tXYxD8g
oscargrouch 11y ago
> If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products, you would also be unhappy? If Coca Cola built roads to villages to sell their products , but only Coca Cola trucks could use the roads - FTFY Now that doesnt look so good, does it?
- melling 11y ago
  Internet.org isn't for only Facebook, right? So, the question is are you an idiot or a troll?
  - visarga 11y ago
    What's to stop one of the participating websites to offer a web proxy, so people could browse any website? If they ban proxies, it will be like the Great firewall of China
  - oscargrouch 11y ago
    Oh you are right, Facebook plus a bunch of friends right? But thats the "internet" right? Facebook just added some sites, so people couldnt say "but its just Facebook" guess what.. people are not stupid, it is just facebook, and something else so we can think that is not "just facebook" But if you think is right to train people that are not used to the internet that the internet is facebook, just for the facebook´s sake, and that this is a good thing?! If this project were really serious they would give full access to people in need, so they can have plenty of access to knowledge to improve their own lives...or what the ads will do to them? And not to be just a facebook catle, so they can show more ads to more people, and increase their market value in the stock market and pleased wall street with more people using facebook.. if that is not plain evil, i dont know what is. Release the full internet to people, or just dump this whole project in the trash where it belongs.
    - melling 11y ago
      People do have the option of not using it. Giving people nothing without a say in the matter seems wrong. Other organizations are free to bring more of the Internet. Google is working on solutions too. It seems wrong to criticise others when you are offering nothing better.
  - dang 11y ago
    > So, the question is are you an idiot or a troll? Please don't do this here.
- baddox 11y ago
  No, that still looks pretty good, because some people want to buy Coca Cola.
  - rosser 11y ago
    They might also want to buy, I don't know, bread. Should the bread company have to build their own roads, too? That's a better world, how exactly? And what about the people who don't want to buy Coca Cola? Should they get to buy nothing?
    - baddox 11y ago
      But those roads were already nonexistent, and their nonexistence is not affected by the existence of Coca Cola roads. In this hypothetical, we are comparing a world with no roads to a world with roads to deliver Coca Cola. Since some people like Coca Cola, I find the latter world preferable.

mcbuilder 11y ago

That's right, only people in first world countries should get to have Faceboook!

mcbuilder 11y ago

That's right, only people in first world countries should get to have Faceboook!

jmstout 11y ago

What if it's the other way around? What if the smart and passionate folks at Facebook really do just want to get the internet to the rest of the world, and this is the way they can justify doing so? They are a public company, after all. They have to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, or at least appear to do so...

kunai 11y ago
The fact that going public always tends to make a company's contributions to society less altruistic and turn the ethos of the company into "moar profitz foar de shaerhoaldurs" raises some fairly damning questions about our capital system and its tendency towards greed and stagnation.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  Is this really the fault of the financial system? In some respects I believe 'economics' is a verb, so the fault -if there is any- lies with the agents enacting the verb, that is to say: people. Humans, groups of them even, certainly have a tendency to produce and accumulate all sorts of things being their survival needs and go on to trade them. This raises all sorts of concerns and has cause many a lot of stress. Blaming 'capital' seems fairly erroneous. Deirdre Mccloskey, in her book 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World' has a very convincing go at turning the idea into a fallacy. The accumulation and use of capital isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. How much good has come from our desire to pool resources. Also, it seems to me we tend to forget what the word 'corporation' means, literally "any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body". Certainly the other more obvious definition of the word includes that thing about "having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members", though me must remember that the words "an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law" come immediately prior. If people lose faith in a "company" it will rapidly cease to exist, or at the very lease must drastically change in order to continue. And yes, I acknowledge we are, probably to a greater extend than we typically realise, products of our environment, products of the societal structures, and built environs, we find ourselves in, and that this makes it very messy to try to discern cause and effect, and to apportion blame. I guess I'm just sceptical of apportioning blame, I don't believe it's particularly helpful. Maybe this comment is a bit incoherent. I often find myself writing comments then not posting them because I can't seem to make a point without contradicting, or undermining, my own writing. Maybe my point is that things probably aren't as simple, as clear cut, as we think. Maybe that's why some people study the liberal arts and sciences and go on to write entire volumes on these sorts of topics.

baddox 11y ago

How is the world with no Facebook plane in any way better than the world with a Facebook plane that provides Facebook access? If you don't want Facebook access, or you already have it, the two worlds are indistinguishable.

bduerst 11y ago
Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. Even ignoring the massive man-in-the-middle attack problems from running old phones on a proxy, Facebook is positioning themselves to control exclusive access to large number of users for websites. You could argue that Google already does this - but Google has competitors that users could switch to in a heartbeat. Internet.org users don't have options, and websites need to pander to Facebook to be in that walled garden. It also makes it easier for third world countries to censor the internet. In the end, this is damaging to the open internet ecosystem. Facebook could have just implemented a rate-limited or data capped system like other ISPs, but they opted to create a more restrictive system that gives them more power.
- baddox 11y ago
  > Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Are you okay with Comcast doing IP shaping and charging Netflix? If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. That's why it's a false dichotomy. Internet.org could very easily be rate and data capped alternatives. >connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access. -Internet.org This would give them monopsonic control over the internet.
    - nostalgiac 11y ago
      > If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. Sorry that is extremely far from the truth. Any of the other major ISPs' would leap at the chance to guzzle up these customers if there was no other competition.