
Facebook is misleading Indians with its full-page ads about Free Basics - temp
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-misleading-indians-its-full-page-ads-free-basics-murthy
======
puranjay
Indian here. The manipulation has been incredibly blatant and scummy. It's not
even funny anymore. Friends who categorically denied having sent a mail to the
Indian telecom regulatory authority on Facebook's behalf (conveniently
supplied by Facebook) show up on my feed as having signed the mail.

It's an all-out blitzkrieg. I've seen full page ads in newspapers, banners at
bus stops, even ads on local Indian websites.

It's one of the scummiest things I've seen from a major company.

~~~
erbdex
Here's a screenshot of what's the permanent top-notification if you're an
Indian and on Facebook- [http://imgur.com/uykRY8G](http://imgur.com/uykRY8G)

~~~
petke
I agree Facebook is doing this for their own greedy reasons, but they make one
very good point:

"Banning free basics on the basis of net neutrality [...] means 1 billion
people cant afford to access any services."

It isn't a choice between having facebook, or having the full internet.

Its a choice between having facebook, or having no internet at all.

Surely no internet at all, is the worst option.

Nobody else is going to give full internet to them for free. They will be
stuck with nothing.

~~~
quadrangle
Nonsense. Facebook is _rich_ enough and powerful enough to MAKE the choice be
full-internet or nothing. They and other powerful entities _can_ provide full
internet. It is THEIR fault that the choice is FaceBook or nothing because
they want that to be the choice. FaceBook is not some savior here. The
ramifications of pushing everyone to FB are also _devastating_ because they
would force everyone to get locked in to using FB for everything and then the
power imbalance will be extremely serious in the long-term. Even a delay in
getting people online is better for the people's interests than locking them
into a shitty closed system for the long-term.

~~~
prostoalex
Facebook is not a carrier.

If any carrier chooses to provide full Internet access for free, they may do
so.

So far they haven't, though. Which is why company-sponsored basic service
that's free to the users emerged in the first place.

~~~
Crito
If they _truly_ had altruistic intentions, they damn well could be.

~~~
marcoperaza
Solutions that work when everyone is following their self-interest are better
than solutions that require altruism. The most successful anti-poverty program
in the history of the world is capitalism.

~~~
rdlecler1
There are a lot of assumptions and learning from 200 years of capitalism baked
into that remark. The rampant 'success' of capitalism was also a factor
leading to communism. Like any good self regulating system it needs mechanisms
in place to control it's own greed.

Also, altruism is perfectly at home with modern evolutionary theory because it
assumes a more enlightened, rather than simple minded, understanding of
altruism.

~~~
marcoperaza
I'm not against altruism. That's not the point I was trying to make at all.

But whereas altruistic solutions to problems require continual interest from
the donor class (which is subject the same fads as the rest of our culture),
or government coercion (which eventually gets co-opted by political
considerations), market solutions are robust because people are profiting from
them. We'd all love to feed the starving people of the world, but sending
ships full of free food isn't the solution (and can actually be harmful). It's
much much more effective to set in motion the market forces that will create a
stable food supply year after year.

~~~
rdlecler1
Agree, donor based systems are non-sustainable. But tax based systems for
public goods are. The Facebook initiative looks innocuous enough but Facebook
is creating a dependency that could be very dangerous for the public good as
the _perceived_ marginal cost of other services is seen to be too high.

The Internet is a basic utility and public good. Monopoly usually doesn't seem
to be a good model for these kinds of systems.

~~~
quadrangle
FWIW, Snowdrift.coop is trying to create a donor-based system for public goods
that is as close as one could get to being sustainable in the way tax-based
systems are. A voluntary tax can never match an imposed tax, but a social
pledge and organized system can make voluntary much more feasible than it is
otherwise in the status quo…

------
addicted
From my Indian friends on Facebook, it appears Facebook is showing messages
that certain friends of yours are supporting, or signed up for Facebook
basics, even if they never did anything of the sort.

It's creepy, and messed up.

Edit: (Leaving the original post untouched), it appears Facebook will show you
as having supported Free Basics if you clicked polls which seemed completely
unrelated (as the original article points out, polls about "Connected India"
for example. Still quite a distance from having supported Free basics, which
is what Facebook appears to show.

~~~
cryoshon
Ah yes, the new propaganda of the 21st century: the corporations try to
convince you that all your friends are supporting their proposals, and so, you
should too. It works. The single most important thing for most humans is being
accepted by their confederates.

Pay close attention: the corporations have no scruples about manipulating you
to get their way, and Facebook is no exception.

A conciliatory response to this deception from Zuck himself is warranted; this
kind of lie-distribution (to over a billion people) shouldn't be accepted
quietly. Furthermore, if Zuck wants his philanthropy efforts to succeed, lying
to a billion people to support his company is going to torpedo it.

~~~
pdkl95
> convince you that all your friends are supporting their proposals

This is a serious problem, because China already showed us the end game of
this tactic with Sesame Credit.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI)

------
ghughes
Even if this is entirely well-intentioned, which is certainly up for debate,
it sets a precedent that will eventually see the world's most powerful media
corporations become gatekeepers of the internet.

The web has been so successful _because_ of any one of us can fire up a text
editor and create the next phenomenon without spending a single dollar or
seeking anyone's permission.

This is not charity, it is a coup d'état.

~~~
sremani
Let us not judge from Intellectual Ivory towers, the facts on the ground are
80% of Indians do not have internet access. You sometimes have to try "impure"
methods. The question is still up in the air, whether FB Basics is gateway to
full internet or if it is a walled garden. Either way, it is better than No
Access. The immediate retort I get is, why not facebook provide free internet
access to poor. Guys, is it their responsibility to give internet connection
without any thing in return? How about asking that to your IAS uncle? or
Politician neighbor.

The Net Neutrality activists of India, are bunch of middle class disconnected
from poor activists. They think their idealogical purity is paramount than a
dirty limited connection for the poor.

I am afraid populism will one more time win the day, while NN activists take a
victory lap, the India's poor now will not have any form of connectivity.

~~~
discardorama
> Let us not judge from Intellectual Ivory towers,

Labeling someone who disagrees with you as being in an "ivory tower" is
basically an ad-hominem. Argue the merits, not the source.

> the facts on the ground are 80% of Indians do not have internet access. You
> sometimes have to try "impure" methods. The question is still up in the air,
> whether FB Basics is gateway to full internet or if it is a walled garden.
> Either way, it is better than No Access.

What if a pharma company came and said, "you know, this medicine causes birth
defects, but it's OK to push it on Indians because 80% lack decent
medication"... would you be for it?

India is making tremendous progress in bringing connectivity to the people. I
grew up in an India where telephones were so scarce, that the waiting list for
a landline phone was more than 10 years. People in villages had absolutely no
access to phones at all; reaching a phone meant taking a bus/train to the
nearest big town, and going to a PCO.

And yet today, almost everyone has a cellphone.

By pushing this "walled garden" to the people, FB will capture the market and
derail the train of progress. FB has the ability to pay local carriers; but
does HN?

~~~
sremani
I apologize if I came across condescending, I was try to set contrast here.
For the activists its an intellectual/idealogical crusade, and for the poor
people it is a way of life thing.

On other note, there are desperate patients and families who are willing to
risk their health and are trying hard to get access to drugs that are in
clinical trails even in OECD countries.

~~~
discardorama
You should really think before spouting off, and you should honestly admit if
you're biased in this instance.

I've followed India's cellular revolution with interest, seeing (as I
mentioned earlier) I grew up when India had almost no phones. My dad, due to
his work, always had a phone; and I, being the youngest, was the errand-boy,
running to distant houses to tell people that there was a phone call for them,
and that the caller would call back in 20 minutes, so please can you come
quickly?

The reason cellphones took off in India is that the government tried (some
would say, not hard enough) to level the playing field and to remove barriers.
What if you could make calls on Reliance to only Reliance folks? Or what if
Airtel charged you Rs. 20/min for calls to Docomo, but Rs 1/min to calls on
Airtel? This kind of balkanization would be disastrous to the cellphone users.

Similarly, if you want internet use to spread, you _cannot do that by placing
barriers and toll gates_ all around. It _has_ to be unfettered access. Sure,
this "basics" thing may be available right _now_ ; but users will then be
locked into one mode of operation forever.

People who are arguing against FB are not just "intellectuals"; but people who
have a lot of experience. I, for one, remember when the first Internet line to
India was hooked up: it was a 56K modem, a Trailblazer. For the entire country
of India. From there, we have come to terabits/sec fibre lines. So yes, I do
know something about the Internet.

~~~
jholman
> _You should really think before spouting off, and you should honestly admit
> if you 're biased in this instance._

The ivory tower comment which you complained about up-thread read to me as
"this is a possible cognitive mistake we might make, let us avoid it" (note
that it used the word "us").

On the other hand, there is no charitable reading of the first line of your
comment. It's just nasty, much nastier than the even the worst reading of the
ivory-tower comment.

>:(

~~~
thetruthseeker1
I agree with jholman and Sreemani here. I dont see the pharma analogy, because
rest of the 20% of the internet users are not forced to pay for something
(Even though there may or may not be questions about anti-competitiveness, but
that is not what we are arguing here...its net neutrality). If they dont like
Reliance agreement with FB, they can switch carriers.

In the US an analogy that I can think of is obamacare, where everybody was
forced to pay a certain amount of money as TAX so that the whole country is
insured.... I dont see the same argument here.

------
anilgulecha
On the ethics of this,

I'd like to know of the engineers/team in the chain of command who is
responsible for the "Something went wrong" flag set on savetheinternet.in :
[http://i.imgur.com/K3JUack.png](http://i.imgur.com/K3JUack.png)

Clearly this flag was not set on the grounds of pornography/violent
matter/malicious link. This flag was instead set on a what is political
speech, representing activists from a large swath of a democratic nation.

Consider how big of an attack this is on speech. Consider if a prominent
website of any other political thought were thus flagged, and warned users
away from.

To any folks from facebook reading this: please point out the team/engineers
and the whole chain of command responsible for this flag -- this suppression
is not a tiny thing.

~~~
Perixoog
The original article link to
[http://www.SaveTheInternet.in](http://www.SaveTheInternet.in) is actually to
[http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.SaveTheIntern...](http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.SaveTheInternet.in%2F&h=6AQGru1wmAQHNGnvS78FliWb9MURKuXto-
djOIpw5XJQEpg&enc=AZOjd9wIUn_2Sr9HwmrDiTdS-9JClWS9N1aPg2_CaVutKdgFbqMeCM2x7k29GJU7pWRxTAmDpDwO1I8Spp9lOw201zOMt66s3PStaD51j8m42
--MweupC6QEbUvyuMdHo6LAsYRK-fBiFLGFCVz2VjkRsFREf-
tZE7SuD3qcmJjfHV2LmyXlvUgllPr1HZt5E74&s=1)

That looks like a link where facebook has replaced the link to the website
with their own URL for tracking purposes. As a consequence they have to
prevent open redirect attacks -
[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Open_redirect](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Open_redirect)
.

Yes the same system can be used for censorship - but facebook can do that
anyway because you're sharing links through a platform they have total control
over.

The irony (of using a facebook tracking url to promote an anti-facebook site)
is beautiful.

------
jeevand
Coming from a rural farming community in India i think this is a very bad
deal. I speak with my folks when i visit India about how they use technology.
The use cases are very practical such as turning off/on the pumpset, since the
fields are far and the power comes and goes at different times, this kind of
app is amazing. I can think of similar use cases once IoT takes off. ex:
Checking the water levels in paddy fields (The crabs make holes and if you are
out of luck all the water is gone, resulting in midnight trips to fields to
make sure everything is fine). The startups which might provide these kind of
services will do well only if the internet is free, else FB will build its own
apps to do this. FB will have a monopoly over the future use cases. The last
thing my folks back home need is to play farmville or poke at each other or
put booty shots in instagram :)

~~~
tim333
It seems kind of a mixed deal for that stuff. Apparently you can submit your
app to use free basics and stuff like you mention should qualify. On the other
hand it's easier to put a service on the regular web than to have to apply to
Facebook. Actually hacking free basics might be good for things like checking
the water levels - you could get a cheap phone pointed at the tank with an app
to look at the water, use Facebook's data and enjoy the knowledge that that
phone isn't going to be pokeing or candy-crushing.

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/participat...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/participation-guidelines)

~~~
jeevand
I am weary of the gatekeepers, they can change the rules when they want. What
would really help from a long term perspective is to provide very low cost
data plans, this might not happen if we go the free basics route since telcos
have vested interest in keeping the free basics forever by jacking up the cost
of data plans.

------
firasd
I don’t have much to add after the last couple threads on this (my concerns
boil down to the importance of net neutrality, and the obscuring way free
Facebook plus a few dozen apps is presented as philanthropy) but it’s
interesting that after 36 countries, as they say, “embraced” internet​.org,
India may finally be where Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitions run aground.

We have a specific mix of an established tech ecosystem, educated middle
class, and active (though imperfect) democracy, all of which combined to spark
a grassroots movement for net neutrality. I hope we can resist Facebook’s
lobbying, whether visible marketing like this or backroom deals with telecom
networks and governments.

P.S. Not to mention the aspect I’ve seen many people bring up: a Western
corporation trying to aggressively meddle in India has an unhappy precedent.

~~~
gpvos
_> a Western corporation trying to aggressively meddle in India has an unhappy
precedent._

Are you referring to the East India Company as the linked article does? Please
be clear, I am not familiar enough with Indian history, and I've seen no-one
else bring it up on this page.

~~~
firasd
Yeah, I see people reference colonialism in general as well as the EIC in
particular.

~~~
gpvos
Okay, I was just curious if you meant something more recent that I was not
aware of. (Not that the colonial era wasn't bad enough, mind you.)

------
cmurf
If I understand this right, it means poor people don't actually get the
Internet. They get Facebook. Ergo it's a regression back to pre-Internet
"Prodigy" and "Compuserve" and "AOL" only days, for poor people. And then they
get piles of ads in their face. It's not really the Internet. So is that
better than nothing? I think that's up to the users to decide rather than
people who have the real Internet.

But I also think it's misleading to refer to this as "digital equality" or
that Facebook and friends constitutes "essential internet services." The only
essential Internet service is the fucking connection to the unabridged
Internet. So call it what it actually is. Don't exaggerate (lie).

EDIT: I don't use Facebook, at all. I have tons of friends who don't use it,
at all. So how "essential" is it? I'm completely OK with them giving free
Facebook + only whatever else they want, but it's b.s. to call this essential
or basic. It's not even really free if people are getting ad bombed to pay for
it.. So yeah, let people have whatever this is, it's fine, but don't
lie/mislead about what it is.

------
chdir
[http://www.savetheinternet.in](http://www.savetheinternet.in) \- A template
for contacting the authorities to show support for net neutrality (speak up
against "Free Basics").

Last time, they received over a million e-mails [0], and that did have a
positive effect. Let's 10x that.

[0] [http://bit.ly/1YCxhlv](http://bit.ly/1YCxhlv)

~~~
vickychijwani
Facebook is doing its best to stop people from accessing this as well -- if I
click a link to that website from Facebook, I get a message that seems
designed to stop me from going ahead. It says, "Something Went Wrong. Sorry,
there was a problem with this link:
[http://www.SaveTheInternet.in/](http://www.SaveTheInternet.in/) You can now
continue to this website, or go back to the page you were on before. Remember,
only follow links from sources you trust."

------
littletimmy
This evokes memories of colonialism. Most Indians I know are like "gtfo we
don't need your help" and Zuckerberg is going like "well I'm going to help you
whether you like it or not."

It is SO obvious he's doing it to make sure Facebook has a permanent hold on
the huge and growing Indian market. But to disguise it as a charity, that's
scummy as anything I've seen a major company do.

------
vinay_ys
First let's keep affordability aside and think about this.

Internet is built on principles of neutrality. It is built on public property
(airways, land) that government leases to companies on our behalf. Internet is
what it is today because of this neutrality principle. It has given rise to so
many companies out of nothingness and created so much opportunity for
disruption and growth. So any

We do not want to turn Internet into something useless and backwards (like
cable/tv networks). That is what Facebook is trying to do here by lobbying the
government to change policy. This has to be stopped no question.

Now let's talk about affordability. Government should look into programs that
will lower the overall cost of Internet by reforming how they license
spectrum.

They can also provide free access to Internet in public places - like public
schools, public libraries, train/bus stations, agri markets etc where most
information hungry people who cannot afford are already there. They can also
encourage large city/town center operators to provide free wifi.

All said, most poor people in India who don't have Internet are in tier-2/3
cities and villages where there is no connectivity at all today. So, it is not
a question of affordability but connectivity.

Facebook is being irresponsible and evil in this case and exploiting the
situation and not doing anything to help. In contrast, google recently
launched a program to provide high-speed Internet free wifi in 400 train
stations in India. This is the largest public wifi program in the world.

~~~
vinchuco
Move fast and break things vs. Don't be evil

------
pranayairan
Indian here, they even started Television ads showing zuke. It is getting out
of hand. There VP of Internet org will be doing an AMA on reddit today !!

------
gamekathu
finally more people are speaking about it. its sad to see facebook revert to
cheap publicity stunt tactics to get their way around. I always had a good
impression of FB specially for their open source tools which I use a lot, and
I really hope they can put this murky event behind them and go back to the way
they were.

n.b : link to the full page ads :
[http://imgur.com/a/hb3nt](http://imgur.com/a/hb3nt)

~~~
logingone
Really? My first encounter with facebook was when I got spammed by a guy I
barely knew, along with the rest of his email address book. I've always found
the company to be slimy.

~~~
gamekathu
The company might be super slimy, but their engineering team has made huge
improvements to the modern web / app development and had gifted us with the
awesome open source tools. Only because of them I had a positive outlook of
the company

~~~
ino
If you write apps for their ecosystem, you've been fucked real, but real hard
at least 6 times in the last 6 years. From unkept promises to everchanging
rules, terms and api.

~~~
rckclmbr
So you dont use react, flow, presto, hhvm, buck, jest, etc.... ?

------
ZoF
For those of us without a linkedin/facebook:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-
misleading-indians-its-full-page-ads-free-basics-murthy)

------
manash
Why not let "our less fortunate brothers" decided what they want. If they
don't want free internet, then its their choice. How insane is it to let the
TRAI regulate the internet! Do you not see the internet is the only real means
of liberating people? And you want a group of elite people to control this!
What happens to the "these airwaves belong to us" argument when the government
bans anti-govt web sites or porn websites or any other websites that the
current elite don't agree with? Down with intelligentsia!

~~~
tdaltonc
"Why not let [the customer] choose" is an argument that can be made of any net
neutrality debate.

Should there be fast-lanes in the US?

TWC: We'll offer plans with and without fast-lanes and let the customers
choose!

Either the internet is the internet or it's not. Facebook wants to bring
Facebook to rural villages? Fine, but they have to bring the whole internet
with them.

~~~
manash
"Should there be fast-lanes in the US?"

Yes. Why not? Just like should there be expensive doctors, restaurants,
entertainment, etc.? Obviously yes.

"Either the internet is the internet or it's not. Facebook wants to bring
Facebook to rural villages? Fine, but they have to bring the whole internet
with them."

My point is let the people in the rural villages decided wether they want
Facebook internet or other forms of internet. Please don't decide on their
behalf. It is very patronizing and antithetical to progess.

~~~
tdaltonc
Anarchic markets/networks don't always give the best results. The regulators
have an important role to play in designing a network that gives the best
results to all players. Net neutrality is a good set of principles for
creating a network that gives the best results for the people on the network.
It's good for networks in the US and it's good for networks in India.

------
mtgx
Over the next few years, someone should also look into how much of that
"philanthropy" money is going into Internet.org from Zuckerberg - mainly
because I'd hate for him to get away with most people believing he's giving
away his fortune for the good of mankind, when in fact he'd just be propping
up Facebook, but with fewer taxes on his money.

~~~
propogandist
there was no mention of philanthropy, it was PR stunt.

All Zuckerburg did was move his wealth to a private LLC, it's the degenerate
media and press that interpreted it as "philanthropy", probably to get some
Likes on their FB post.

~~~
soared
Besides his entire letter saying it was being given to charity you mean?

~~~
propogandist
show me that letter

you may want to revist it

[https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2015/12/03/is-the-new-
zucker...](https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2015/12/03/is-the-new-zuckerberg-
fake-charity-an-estate-tax-avoidance-scheme/)

------
dunkelheit
Today I learned that Indians have a word for ten million (crore).

On a more serious note this facebook campaign is an embodiment of principles
elucidated Zero to One. Competition sucks, argues Mr. Thiel, try to create a
monopoly. And monopoly is great if you are a business but for customers it is
other way round. I hope India will preserve open and competitive internet for
its citizens.

The article states that the chief aim of this campaign is to prevent Indians
from using google. Are there any signs of them taking countermeasures?

~~~
nickff
In "Zero to One", (which I just finished reading yesterday), Thiel actually
argued that monopolies were good for both sides of the market, so long as the
monopoly was achieved through excellence, and not just corruption or
government-grant.

------
watmough
Facebook needs to stop a homegrown Facebook alternative arising in India.

They need to stop it now, by smothering it in the crib, redirecting its
potential future users into a Facebook-curated walled-garden.

Growth is required for Facebook, and India is a clear growth area, China
having been largely ruled off-limits by the Chinese government.

A toehold in one of the most populous countries on the planet. Has to have the
Facebook board salivating.

------
jacquesm
The dissonance between Mark Zuckerberg's letter to his daughter and stuff like
this is hard to bridge.

------
stcredzero
Okay, if an activist can contemplate a program giving everyone in India who
wants it 500MB a month mobile bandwidth, then I have to call out western web
app developers for committing a heinous crimes against global Internet access
equality.

It used to be that I could get by with a 500MB plan on my iPhone, and so long
as I avoided video streaming, I'd usually use 300MB. Now I see that my Maps
apps alone use that in a month, and I run out of 6GB bandwidth every month.

It's a truism that bandwidth is like highway lanes: If it's there, it will be
used. But really, am I getting more functionality for the increased bandwidth?
I think not.

~~~
soared
You're blaming devs because you us 6gb a month? That is a joke. I share 15gb
with 6 people in my family and we've never gone over. Obviously you are doing
something out of the ordinary.

~~~
stcredzero
The devs must have done something, because I haven't changed how I use Maps.
How is it that Maps alone is using the entire allocation of the bandwidth I
used to use in a month?

~~~
r3bl
Not that I want to support Microsoft, but I had the same issue until I
switched to HERE (Nokia's old product). Basically I have downloaded a map of
my country (~300 MB in size) and set the application to work offline. Works
like a charm, does not feel like a downgrade at all.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Interestingly, Wikimedia also engages in zero-rating, through their Wikipedia
Zero program. But their motivations are genuinely altruistic. (After all, it
brings them no direct benefit and costs them money.)

~~~
such_a_casual
Wikipedia is a pretty shady organization. For years they have used server
costs as one of the main reasons (and in the some cases the main reason) why
people should donate. But their finance reports paint a very different
picture. Their server costs reflect a very small percentage of their overall
costs. They ask for way more money than they actually need. More money is
spent on "investments" and fundraisers than is spent on the cost of
maintaining the site. Some people have also alleged purposeful backlinking to
their for profit sites. That is, adding and replacing links in wikipedia pages
to point to websites that the wikipedia founders profit from. So using
wikipedia as an example of "genuinely altruistic" motivation is a stretch. The
founders of wikipedia do not benefit directly from their work, but they
certainly benefit indirectly and through false advertising.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Wikipedia is a pretty shady organization.

Wikimedia. They do a lot more than just the encyclopædia.

> For years they have used server costs as one of the main reasons (and in the
> some cases the main reason) why people should donate. But their finance
> reports paint a very different picture. Their server costs reflect a very
> small percentage of their overall costs.

Server costs are not the only thing they need to spend money on. Consider
their budget for 2015-2016:

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16#Appendix_A_-
_Budget_Detail)

40% of that is spent on engineering. Someone needs to maintain MediaWiki.

~6% is spent on legal - they're a large site that has to deal with copyright
issues, they need lawyers. ~15% is spent on administrative costs, as if you
employ lots of people, you need to manage them.

> They ask for way more money than they actually need.

They could run on a leaner budget, yes, but it's not as if the other money
they get is wasted. More money means they can hire more engineers to work on
the site and improve it, for example.

> More money is spent on "investments" and fundraisers than is spent on the
> cost of maintaining the site.

Looking at that budget, they spend more on Engineering than on Community
Engagement, Grants, Advancement, and Communications combined.

> Some people have also alleged purposeful backlinking to their for profit
> sites. That is, adding and replacing links in wikipedia pages to point to
> websites that the wikipedia founders profit from.

Could you provide evidence, or at least a credible source?

~~~
such_a_casual
So you are going to ignore everything I said to talk about what you want to
talk about? cool.

Wikipedia's financial statements are easy to find and they provide them for
you:
[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports#2010....](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports#2010.E2.80.9311_fiscal_year)

I'll go over my first point, and you can decide whether you want to continue
to ignore my actual statements:

1\. They use server costs to plea for donations. This is deceptive and
dishonest advertising. In certain years, wikipedia abused the public's
perception of server costs as their main selling point. Even when server costs
are not necessarily their main selling point, they are more often than not the
very first cost listed on their advertisements.

[http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...](http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize.png)

If you were to poll wikipedia donators, what % of wikipedia's total costs
would they think are server costs if they are going by wikipedia's
advertisements?

In 2010, wikipedia states they received the following in donations:
$14,490,273

They list "internet hosting" costs for that year as: $1,056,703

< 7%

In 2011, wikipedia's stated they recieved: $23,020,127

with "internet hosting" costs of: $1,799,943

< 8%

Please stop twisting my words out of love for wikipedia. Wikipedia deceives
their users about where their money is actually going and asks for MILLIONS of
dollars more than they actually need.

~~~
elemenopy
To quote from the screenshot you linked of a typical Wikimedia Foundation
advertisement: [1]

"We ... have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs,
staff and legal help."

I count six costs listed there. Doesn't look like "pretty shady" advertising
to me.

Also, "internet hosting costs" in the financial statements isn't all the money
spent on IT-related costs. For example, computer equipment is counted as an
investment which then depreciates. In the 2011 financial statements you
linked, Wikimedia spent $3.2m on computer equipment and $1m on depreciation
(though depreciation would also include things like furniture). [2]

You also haven't provided any evidence for your claim Wikimedia promotes
"purposeful backlinking to their for profit sites".

Finally, although it's an imperfect way to analyse charities, Charity
Navigator gives Wikimedia Foundation 93.5/100, an excellent score. [3]

1\.
[http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...](http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize.png)

2\.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL_10_11From_KPMG.pdf)

3\.
[http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212)

------
txtsd
I'm still mad that facebook hasn't unblocked the I Fucking Love Science page
yet here in India. Why would anyone block a page about science while letting
the religious bullshit/reposts runs rampant?

------
tr33fiddy
This album shows the kind of things Facebook is doing to push Free Basics.

[http://m.imgur.com/gallery/dnAFg](http://m.imgur.com/gallery/dnAFg)

------
la6470
The Indian poor people may be poor but they are not fools. A substandard
service will not take off just like Tata Nano car for the poor failed
miserably so will this Facebook initiative.

------
vankap
This is deception. Pure and simple. There are many different and ethical ways
of providing connectivity to the poor but not at the cost of losing net
neutrality.

------
rsync
The real question is, will facebook lobby against, and attempt to disallow,
free community / coop network access ?

It's one thing to trick a bunch of poor people into thinking you're giving
them free Internet access ... it's still free.

It's quite another to then shackle them by manipulating their legal system
into disallowing any other free options.

I have a lot on my plate right now, but it sure would be interesting to do a
very small scale proof of concept free wifi mesh anywhere in India ... just to
see who that pisses off ... I see my favorite bulk IP provider (he.net) has
zero presence in India, so that doesn't make things quick and simple ... we'll
see ...

~~~
marcoperaza
Hundreds of millions of people in India don't even have access to electricity,
let alone internet. The Indian government is extremely corrupt and over-
regulating. They have failed to bring modernity to a billion people. That's
the context here. From what I can tell, Free Basics is a market solution that
will allow a bunch of self-interested parties to bring connectivity to people
who would probably never get it otherwise.

If there are all of these other alternatives, why doesn't someone set them up
as a competitor to Free Basics. No one would use a limited service like Free
Basics if they had free access to "real" internet access.

~~~
firasd
What makes you think Free Basics is doing anything about electricity or
connectivity? It is just zero-rating for Facebook & partner apps, riding on
top of infrastructure and services built by existing telecom networks in the
country with the "extremely corrupt" and "failed" government.

~~~
marcoperaza
Why the scare quotes around "extremely corrupt"? Do you really think
otherwise? India is notorious for pervasive total corruption from top to
bottom.

Facebook is not doing anything about electricity; I mention that statistic to
demonstrate how modern infrastructure has failed to reach a huge portion of
Indians. Facebook has come up with a business model that can reach people that
don't have the ability to pay out of pocket for ANY connectivity. By making it
profitable for telecoms to serve these people, Free Basics would encourage
that infrastructure to expand to the one billion people it hasn't reached.

~~~
firasd
I'm quoting your phrases to contrast that the fact that, notwithstanding
governmental failure and corruption, the reason Facebook can do this at all is
because the spread of mobile phones and internet access in India has been a
major success story. There are about 900 million mobile connections, and
internet adoption is accelerating, with nearly 100 million users added in an
year (this is close a third of the total internet user base, so we're talking
double-digit growth over 20%.)

Facebook has not come up with a business model that makes it profitable for
telecoms to serve people. They've just used their negotiating power, PR
resources, government and corporate lobbying to convince telecoms to zero-rate
Free Basics, calling it philanthropy.

------
mirimir
With neither Linkedin nor Facebook accounts, I can't read this article. But
maybe this one is just as useful:
[http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/facebook-campaign-gets-
mo...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/facebook-campaign-gets-more-teeth-
as-d-day-closes-in/story-uNSG0z09Pp8TgdJnlTG6LL.html)

------
salgernon
I think this could all be resolved by letting Facebook pay the cost, but if
they're going to restrict where you can go, require that they are restricting
it to a competitor. Twitter maybe? lesswrong? And first level outgoing links
from those sources.

------
rexpop
While I'm curious about the pros and cons of a gratis walled garden, was the
greater offense the way Facebook used their presence to affect political
change? Would it have been offensive to do so in an attempt to counteract
pollution?

~~~
rando289
Yes. If it was an extremely self interested cleanup of only a certain kind of
pollution which it would only help with on the condition that other more
important kinds of pollution increased or got much less attention, and would
lead to much worse long term consequences, and facebook was completelly scummy
spamming everyone about "if you don't want this, you want babies to die of
pollution."

------
TheSpiceIsLife
Free Facebook means free Facebook Messenger.

Give a billion people free Facebook Messenger and I'm sure someone will
develop an IoFM 'Internet over Facebook Messenger' protocol.

On another note, AOL was a walled-garden and look where that ended up.

~~~
ex3ndr
This is impossible, Facebook Messenger doesn't have any open protocol at all.
Facebook will fight everyone who will try to do so.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Impossible? HTML is plain text.

------
shkesar
> for every new user that comes on the internet, Facebook makes Rs. 8, while
> Google makes aroumd Rs. 48

Where are these figures from? Who pays facebook for signups? Just looking for
an insight into this.

~~~
firasd
He's probably just dividing their revenue (or some other financial metric) by
the number of users.

~~~
shkesar
Fine. Thanks.

------
Sven7
At the end of the story a few people in Silicon Valley will get
disproportionately richer than everyone else.

------
marcoperaza
If there are alternative ways to bring internet access to the billion
unconnected Indians, then why does the Indian government need to ban Free
Basics? Those alternatives can be set up in parallel. No one will use Free
Basics if the alternative is free "real" internet access.

------
mahranch
If I was facebook, I'd tread lightly.

India has a long history of reneging on deals. Once a deal is struck with most
nations, that's it. Done deal. With India, they don't care - they'll do
whatever is convenient for them.

They did just that on a huge WTO deal years in the making (source:
[http://www.npr.org/2014/08/10/339292735/why-indias-modi-
defi...](http://www.npr.org/2014/08/10/339292735/why-indias-modi-defied-the-
wto)). The also reneged on a solar energy trade agreement with the U.S
(source: [http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-
Industry/2013/02/07/...](http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-
Industry/2013/02/07/Indias-solar-program-a-trade-issue/41121360263835/)).

Hell, even Russia and China won't back out of deals once struck. They'll piss
and moan if it turns out they got the short end of the stick, but they'll
still honor the deal.

I tell my clients to steer clear of India for this very reason - it's nearly
impossible to know when a deal is "solid". There's very little recourse if a
business or person reneges on a business deal, or rips you off.

I almost hope facebook wins this little battle; India benefits from facebook
pumping a bunch of money into India's infrastructure to build it up, supplying
internet to the poor, then India says "Nope, sorry facebook, you gotta go. It
was nice having you!". Facebook would get what it deserves. I actually
wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

~~~
jarsj
I guess you have no idea what this is really about.

All we are asking our Govt. is to adopt same Net Neutrality standards that
exist in US and other EU countries.

Companies like Uber/Amazon are already pumping huge money in India because
they need us, not vice-versa. Just because we are open, unlike China, doesn't
mean you can play unfair.

~~~
mahranch
> _All we are asking our Govt. is to adopt same Net Neutrality standards that
> exist in US and other EU countries._

I understand that, and support it 100%. I am 100% pro-net neutrality.

> Just because we are open, unlike China, doesn't mean you can play unfair.

My issue is that _India_ will play unfair. They have a history of it.

Say what you will about all the people who have their own anecdotal bad
experiences with Indian companies & professionals over the last 5-10 years
(dozens of accounts that I've read here, on our very own hackernews), but the
simple fact of the matter is that even India's government has a track record
of reneging on deals. And these weren't small deals, these were deals years in
the making.

That's not good for India. Investors will (and are) balking at the idea of
entering the Indian market because who knows when India will pull the rug out
from under them when the mood strikes. There's also very little legal recourse
when that does happen. It doesn't help when your country is among the most
corrupt countries on the planet; they ranked 94th in Transparency
International's corruption index. There are 93 countries less corrupt than
India. Source:
[http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results](http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results)

~~~
jeevand
> India has a long history of reneging on deals. Once a deal is struck with
> most nations, that's it. Done deal. With India, they don't care - they'll do
> whatever is convenient for them.

Most nations will do whatever is convenient for them. ex: If you are from US,
GOP says they will cancel the Iran nuclear deal

> Hell, even Russia and China won't back out of deals once struck. They'll
> piss and moan if it turns out they got the short end of the stick, but
> they'll still honor the deal.

Not tue, ex: Hong Kong democracy

> I tell my clients to steer clear of India for this very reason - it's nearly
> impossible to know when a deal is "solid".

You just described all the other countries apart from developed countries
where there are no severe penalties for walking out of a deal

> My issue is that India will play unfair. They have a history of it.

Every country does it. ex: Union carbide CEO lived happily in US till he died

> That's not good for India. Investors will (and are) balking at the idea of
> entering the Indian market because who knows when India will pull the rug
> out from under them when the mood strikes.

Investors know the risks, Equity Risk Premiums are higher for India (& other
developing countries). If investors don't invest in India or China due to
inherent risks then they might loose out in the long run given that the future
returns from developed world will not be great

~~~
mahranch
> Most nations will do whatever is convenient for them.

Most nations do not renege on trade agreements made with other nations.

> GOP says they will cancel the Iran nuclear deal

"Says" and "do" are two different things, they won't because it's
unprecedented. The U.S doesn't renege on massive trade agreements, or with the
WTO.

> Not tue, ex: Hong Kong democracy

Ignoring the fact that I have no idea what you mean by this, I do know that it
is not a trade agreement, nor is it a financial agreement with another nation.
You're comparing apples and oranges.

> You just described all the other countries apart from developed countries

That was kind of my point?

> Every country does it.

Apples and oranges - no "big" country reneges on trade agreements, or reneges
on deals with the WTO that were years in the making. Those things are
completely unprecedented. I think you, and those who agree with you, fail to
grasp the scope and what those deals meant. They literally ripped off the U.S.
The U.S delivered on its end, then when it was time for India to live up to
its end of the bargain, they ran off. Literally. (See here:
[http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/us-launches-
ne...](http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/us-launches-new-wto-
challenge-against-india-solar-incentives))

> If investors don't invest in India or China due to inherent risks then they
> might loose out in the long run

Speculation. China's economy is slowing down and India's is pretty stagnant
(relatively speaking). Other than having a lot of people (over a billion
each), neither country has much going for it. There is no innovation coming
out of either country. Look up any "most innovative countries" on google and
see if you can find China or India among them. _Those_ countries investors may
risk losing out on - countries like South Korea.

> from developed world will not be great

Just having a lot of people (big population) doesn't mean there is money to be
made. Especially when the government in question (China, for example) is about
as authoritative as it gets. They can literally take your business away from
you and kick you out of the country and there wouldn't be a damn thing you
could do about it. That's not opportunity, that's a minefield. And it's why
foreign investors are staying away anb/or pulling their funds out.

Edit: I just noticed in a prior comment you said you were from India, a
farming village. Don't you think you're a little biased on the matter?

