
Facebook Meets Skepticism in Bid to Expand Internet in India - Futurebot
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/technology/facebook-meets-skepticism-in-bid-to-expand-internet-in-india.html
======
guelo
If I lived in one of these countries I would sue them for false advertising, a
few canned crippled websites is not the internet so you can't call it
Internet.org. What really pisses me off though is Zuckerberg trying to pass
this smarmy scheme as some kind of altruism. Asshole.

~~~
xiaoma
This comment would be so much better without the final word.

------
SingAlong
Article titled "Facebook meets skepticism..." is actually about Reliance's
network issues not helping Internet.org. SaveTheInternet is portrayed as a
hurdle for everyone getting free internet access.

Facebook's meets "skepticism" because it is offering walled internet in South
East Asian countries like India, Indonesia, etc. Facebook + a few services
that people didn't ask for. Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a
page warning that you will be charged if you visit a service that's not part
of internet.org. Google has also been offering such a service called "Google
Free Zone" in certain countries.

If Facebook or Google feel so charitable, why not help telecom providers
write-off data costs and offer say 250mb/month free per person?

~~~
mcintyre1994
> Clicking external links on Facebook will lead to a page warning that you
> will be charged if you visit a service that's not part of internet.org.

I wonder if they include instant articles in Internet.org - if they do it's a
clever way to consolidate and control the media. Grant people like nytimes [0]
access and keep them on side when you need a pr piece.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-
media-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/technology/facebook-media-
venture-to-include-nbc-buzzfeed-and-new-york-times.html?_r=0)

------
pen2l
> _Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in
> February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough
> to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access._

Why the assumption that Facebook has good intentions? This is a predatorial
move to lock customers into Facebook's ecosystem. And FB is not promising
'universal' Internet access.

~~~
addicted44
Agreed. They named it Internet.org but the service is diametrically opposed to
the basic principles that make up the Internet as we know it.

A far more appropriate name would have been AOL.org. But that wouldn't have
been as good PR and the NYTimss would not be writing about their good
intentions if the name of the service was more descriptive of what it actually
did.

~~~
x5n1
As a staring step force them to rename the service to facebook.org

~~~
tim333
They seem to be going that way:

"'Free Basics by Facebook' replaces Internet.org website and app"

[http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-
facebook/](http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/24/free-basics-by-facebook/)

------
jasim
This is a PR piece.

> Facebook’s rocky experience since it brought Internet.org to India in
> February shows that good intentions and technological savvy are not enough
> to achieve a noble goal like universal Internet access.

Such lofty ideals. This could've applied to the EFF or the Internet Archive,
but Facebook is a far cry.

~~~
pyrophane
In addition to being a PR piece, this further exposes the NY Times lack of
capability when it comes to technology reporting. It makes me wonder if they
are treating tech a bit like their real estat operations: less as a
journalistic endeavour and more as a cash machine for their more serious
reporting.

Either way, anyone with a solid background in tech surely would have
recommended a few important points about internet.org that should have had a
place in this coverage.

~~~
IIAOPSW
> this further exposes the NY Times lack of capability

full stop.

------
IkmoIkmo
It's silly. Look I think it's fine for FB to do this, it's better than nothing
although the resources could be better spent. But at the end of the day, it's
not internet access at all. It's wireless access to a select amount of
intranets, basically, including FB and a few partner networks. That's fine,
just don't run a campaign about the internet and use a domain like
internet.org.

Either way, it doesn't really seem to matter. Looks like it's not gaining
traction because users want internet, not what is offered. So either they
steer the ship towards the goal of providing that, or it dies. I'm sure
they're learning tons right now and I'm sure in a few years it'll have
improved substantially, so I'm still optimistic.

------
simula67
Last I heard, Internet.org is not the "Internet". It was only a program to
grant access to a limited set of sites like Facebook for free. It has since
been re branded to 'Free Basics' but IMO that is still misleading.

------
intopieces
Does Facebook collect personal data from the users of the Basics program
(beyond what they already collect as Facebook)? This seems like a opportunity
to exploit/sell information about a group of people who are even less likely
that first-world Internet users to understand the implications of such a
trade.

------
manibatra
Personally I think that making even a fraction of services accessible to a
small fraction of users which have never used Internet before is a good cause.
The simple act of getting them online, even if providing them limited
services, can be a gateway to the "Internet" as a whole.

Facebook is a company which exists in the end to increase the value for its
shareholders so I think it is expected they obviously will try to further
their cause i.e. getting everyone on the Facebook platform. Maybe they
overplayed the altruistic card and should have been more forthright about
their intentions.

"We", people who take for granted the connectivity that Internet offers, in my
humble opinion maybe overly skeptic of Facebook's intentions. But to someone
who has not accessed internet ever, even a fraction of it can be very
empowering.

~~~
userbinator
A "fraction of services" that Facebook wants, not necesarily what the
population wants.

~~~
manibatra
People who do not have access to the internet do not necessarily "want" any
services.

