6 ms·

Some internet > no internet

dropit_sphere 11y ago
I don't think that's true. We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
- qmalxp 11y ago
  Why don't we ask the people who currently have no internet what they'd prefer?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Disclaimer: I am only a young person in Germany, but used the 0.facebook.com service (facebook for free) here for almost 10 years. Result: Yes, some internet is better than no internet. Nowadays, where I stopped using facebook mostly, I just buy like the tiniest data package my provider supports, wait for it to throttle to 64kbps, and just use IRC, the web without JS, etc.
    - cpach 11y ago
      More like 5 years, right? :-p https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebook-mobile-access-with-0facebookcom/391295167130 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo... </nitpick>
      - kuschku 11y ago
        It existed since 2007 with E-Plus in Germany ;P
        cpach 11y ago
        Cool :)
  - medecau 11y ago
    Will they be able to reply to this comment?
  - eric-hu 11y ago
    When internet.org is made available to these people, won't their usage or lack thereof signal their preference?
  - dropit_sphere 11y ago
    Which would you prefer, knowing what you know?
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  You are assuming a lessened desire, why? There are no perfect options, only trade offs. FB can provide a service, and if people don't use it, fine. But, let them decide.
  - darawk 11y ago
    Ya, there's nothing wrong with them providing this service. They just shouldn't be heralded as providing some great charity, I think that's all people are saying. If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      Facebook is a business, yes. Does that mean they do not positively impact the world? Absolutely not. IIRC they are providing FB and Wikipedia (among other resources), those two resources alone will allow people the access to the entirety of human knowledge, and the ability to connect to anyone in the world. Via there phone. That is _huge_. Yes, it isn't perfect, and yes FB is investing for advertising in ~5-10+ years to come. But, that doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of people's lives will be dramatically better as a result. I apologise of this was slightly incoherent, I'm on mobile and do not have time to re-read.
      - z1mm32m4n 11y ago
        > ... will allow people to access the entirety of human knowledge ... This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books! The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.
        dylanjermiah 11y ago
        My claim was not correct. However, a lot of blogs, journals, books etc. are used as references for Wikipedia. Regardless, this is a huge step up. We must not let perfection get in the way of progress. FB will not have any control, people can choose to use it, or not. They are also free to pay for an ISP when an affordable and reliable one arrives. Which at this point is not possible.
jacquesm 11y ago
That isn't true. One of the reasons why France tends to be a bit behind in all things internet even today is that they had 'minitel', a system that wasn't quite the whole internet (it was information services reachable by phone using a custom terminal with the prestel protocol). It worked so well that they didn't replace their system with the internet when it became available and as a result have been playing catch-up since then. Just having some applications is not the same as being online, it's just a way for those companies to short-circuit the wait before they can add those users to their 'inventory'. As a result the incentive to roll out the remainder is for a large part removed. This is the corporate wet-dream for the net: just a couple of big data silos. And where better to trial this idea and lock in the users as much as possible.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  Well said. So what are we do to? Not that I necessarily feel motivated to do anything myself, fairly comfortable being an keyboard-warrior and all. What prevents someone(s) from launching a competing service? Some of the answers to that are obvious, given what you've written. What are we to do?
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I disagree that minitel itself played any significant role in France's current situation. It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. Minitel was also in the U.S. in the early 90s, but didn't last because competition wasn't outlawed. This is a substantial step up to the current alternative. No one is being 'locked' in, this will increase education and communication, and therefore the welfare of the users. Than, ISPs will come in and wipe them out. You have to start somewhere.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment. That's definitely another important factor but the fact that minitel actually worked was definitely a detriment. I remember visiting France during the Internet boom in the rest of Europe and people there were proudly showing off their minitel terminals (tiny little screens with a slide-out keyboard) and what they could do with it and how they didn't need this newfangled American nonsense in their houses. Of course that didn't hold in the longer term but it certainly did not help early adoption.

I don't think that's true. We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)

qmalxp 11y ago
Why don't we ask the people who currently have no internet what they'd prefer?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kuschku 11y ago
  Disclaimer: I am only a young person in Germany, but used the 0.facebook.com service (facebook for free) here for almost 10 years. Result: Yes, some internet is better than no internet. Nowadays, where I stopped using facebook mostly, I just buy like the tiniest data package my provider supports, wait for it to throttle to 64kbps, and just use IRC, the web without JS, etc.
  - cpach 11y ago
    More like 5 years, right? :-p https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebook-mobile-access-with-0facebookcom/391295167130 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo... </nitpick>
    - kuschku 11y ago
      It existed since 2007 with E-Plus in Germany ;P
      - cpach 11y ago
        Cool :)
- medecau 11y ago
  Will they be able to reply to this comment?
- eric-hu 11y ago
  When internet.org is made available to these people, won't their usage or lack thereof signal their preference?
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  Which would you prefer, knowing what you know?
dylanjermiah 11y ago
You are assuming a lessened desire, why? There are no perfect options, only trade offs. FB can provide a service, and if people don't use it, fine. But, let them decide.
- darawk 11y ago
  Ya, there's nothing wrong with them providing this service. They just shouldn't be heralded as providing some great charity, I think that's all people are saying. If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    Facebook is a business, yes. Does that mean they do not positively impact the world? Absolutely not. IIRC they are providing FB and Wikipedia (among other resources), those two resources alone will allow people the access to the entirety of human knowledge, and the ability to connect to anyone in the world. Via there phone. That is _huge_. Yes, it isn't perfect, and yes FB is investing for advertising in ~5-10+ years to come. But, that doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of people's lives will be dramatically better as a result. I apologise of this was slightly incoherent, I'm on mobile and do not have time to re-read.
    - z1mm32m4n 11y ago
      > ... will allow people to access the entirety of human knowledge ... This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books! The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        My claim was not correct. However, a lot of blogs, journals, books etc. are used as references for Wikipedia. Regardless, this is a huge step up. We must not let perfection get in the way of progress. FB will not have any control, people can choose to use it, or not. They are also free to pay for an ISP when an affordable and reliable one arrives. Which at this point is not possible.

jacquesm 11y ago

That isn't true. One of the reasons why France tends to be a bit behind in all things internet even today is that they had 'minitel', a system that wasn't quite the whole internet (it was information services reachable by phone using a custom terminal with the prestel protocol). It worked so well that they didn't replace their system with the internet when it became available and as a result have been playing catch-up since then. Just having some applications is not the same as being online, it's just a way for those companies to short-circuit the wait before they can add those users to their 'inventory'. As a result the incentive to roll out the remainder is for a large part removed. This is the corporate wet-dream for the net: just a couple of big data silos. And where better to trial this idea and lock in the users as much as possible.

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
Well said. So what are we do to? Not that I necessarily feel motivated to do anything myself, fairly comfortable being an keyboard-warrior and all. What prevents someone(s) from launching a competing service? Some of the answers to that are obvious, given what you've written. What are we to do?
dylanjermiah 11y ago
I disagree that minitel itself played any significant role in France's current situation. It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. Minitel was also in the U.S. in the early 90s, but didn't last because competition wasn't outlawed. This is a substantial step up to the current alternative. No one is being 'locked' in, this will increase education and communication, and therefore the welfare of the users. Than, ISPs will come in and wipe them out. You have to start somewhere.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment. That's definitely another important factor but the fact that minitel actually worked was definitely a detriment. I remember visiting France during the Internet boom in the rest of Europe and people there were proudly showing off their minitel terminals (tiny little screens with a slide-out keyboard) and what they could do with it and how they didn't need this newfangled American nonsense in their houses. Of course that didn't hold in the longer term but it certainly did not help early adoption.