

Beware of geeks bearing gifts - achalkley
http://aralbalkan.com/notes/beware-of-geeks-bearing-gifts/

======
pearkes
> What Facebook and Google have done is discovered a village with no water and
> they plan to bring them cheap Coke to buy when—if their motives were truly
> honorable—there is another glaringly obvious option: you could teach them to
> build a well.

Funny you should mention Coke. It turns out that these businesses desiring
profits can pretty efficiently solve or make improvement to problems, like
distribution, in places like Africa.[1]

Regardless of their motivation, either with balloons or wires, the deep
pockets and ingenuity of Google and Facebook will connect people who aren't.
And, they'll do it faster and more efficiently then government, charity.

Their "evil" desire for profits will benefit us, as Coke has, apparently.[2]

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/coke-
applie...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/coke-applies-
supply-chain-expertise-to-deliver-aids-drugs-in-africa.html) (2012)

[2] It's obviously not all roses, with the health concerns, etc. Point is that
they solved a problem motivated by profit, and now health organizations, etc.
are able to learn from that, directly or just by watching. They're moving us
in generally the right direction.

~~~
drcongo
Funnily enough, Coke are already draining the wells of villages that do have
them.
[http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1](http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1)

~~~
pearkes
Yea, let me clear – I'm not saying a huge multi-national corporation is
squeaky clean because of one positive thing they've done.

The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not
be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of
attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.

~~~
wavefunction
Efficiency is not the only thing that matters though. As drcongo pointed out
Coke is very efficiently depleting the normal aquifers that native farmers
rely on in their quest to build a market for their product.

Now if we consider that Coke is a luxury when compared to a necessity like
water for drinking and irrigation, we should conclude that a luxury that
precludes a necessity is superfluous and should be prohibited. That includes
prohibiting "efficient businesses" when their actions to earn profits
negatively impact the basic level of life.

~~~
s_q_b
If Coca Cola is depleting a shared resource, then there is an unpriced
negative externality. The solution is for the government to transfer some of
the gains from the new more efficient system to those worse off under the new
equilibrium.

This can be accomplished by taxing the corporation for its use of the
aquifers, and transferring the payments directly to those that lost use of
their wells.

The end result is that everyone ends up with more wealth than they had under
the old system.

------
raverbashing
Here's one thing about "complementary services".

"Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements."
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html)

Yes, Google and Facebook have their agenda, but that's their object, to make
an internet connection as a commodity as possible.

In the same way auto companies want a gas station in every corner (and the
opposite, gas companies want cars to be popular)

------
VMG
Life is not zero-sum. Just because big corporations gain, doesn't mean you
have to lose.

And please, stop with the slavery metaphor. It's offensive. There are _actual_
slaves in Africa that would love the serfdom of targeted ads.

~~~
achalkley
When the internet is being used as a "right" or commodity like food and your
digital persona, which you don't "own", is being used to profit someone else,
and your "right" to it is revoked if you choose to "own" it, the metaphor is
apt.

~~~
dylangs1030
No, it's not apt at all. When your digital self allows for your physical self
to be whipped, starved, or forced to mate in the name of profit, it will be
apt.

Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. But let's not weaken our arguments
with ludicrous hyperbole.

~~~
achalkley
It's not considering that everyone's privacy is being violated. You have no
rights if it's in digital form. Your speech is monitored. You are physically
removed from a country because of a misunderstood tweet. [An example :
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312)].

The threats of violence and detention against your will by nation states are
real, and having Google and other tech companies being complicit is scary. Why
are they complicit? Because of the same threats of violence.

We are slaves. Maybe not whipped, maybe not starved, but threatened, poisoned
and our children's children are in debt slavery because of the rainbows and
unicorns we think is just around the corner if we borrow a little bit more.
And by the sweat of their brow will we pay for the NSA / GCHQ, the wars and
such like.

~~~
redacted
On one side: people as literal property, with no rights. They and their
children are treated no better than intelligent cattle, and their continued
survival is a function of their current economic worth.

On the other hand: a private company offers you a free service which if you
may voluntarily opt-in to. If you so choose, they will use to collect
information of value to try and sell you stuff. You may then choose, or not,
to engage with those advertisements. In many cases, there are trivial options
to hinder or reduce this tracking, including options provided by the companies
themselves.

It is certainly hyperbole, and succeeds only in (a) demeaning further those
millions of people trapped in real slavery, and (b) weakening any arguments on
the negative aspects of internet surveillance.

------
alexfarran
Help! My digital self has been enslaved by corporate missionaries and forced
to drink coke. Can we calm down on the emotive metaphors a little so I can see
the actual point?

~~~
inthewind
The take home I got was to question Facebook and Google's motives.

Loon and Android (or a free alternative) could make for a pretty sweet peer to
peer alternative Internet.

Perhaps an alternative would be to bounce signals off of other satellites.

[http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-
moments/4404759/Pro...](http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-
moments/4404759/Project-Diana-bounces-radio-waves-off-moon--January-10--1946)

------
plg
We shouldn't be relying on for-profit companies to provide a service as basic
(in today's modern world) and powerful (education, health, etc) as internet
access... because they have nefarious motives in mind.

Instead we should be relying on our governments, who have our interests in
mind and whose primary job is to protect our rights. ... ..

um...

oops

never mind

~~~
daraul
When you elect anarchists, it's hardly surprising that the government stops
functioning.

~~~
icebraining
I agree, but we have never done so.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I really hope nobody takes this guys post seriously. For the one situation
that I am personally familiar with, Western companies taking an interest in
Indian villages has been a great boon to the locals.

There are many idealists in the West that don't understand what the impact is
of even simple things that they take for granted. If a man provides fresh
drinking water to a remote Indian village, and if the water comes in bottles
with advertisements for products, it might seem evil to this guy, but
actually, from the point of view of the villager, its still an unambiguously
good thing.

Nobody at the bottom of the Pyramid cares whether or not they have to log into
Google in order to access their free online classes from EdX, Udacity, Khan
academy etc. They are just thankful to have that access, which they did not
have in the past.

And beyond that, its not like they cannot create a profile with Google and
then ignore it, and connect to the Internet outside of Google products. Its
not like Google blocks access to other search engines, or to other competing
services. You still have access to the Internet.

Also, its not even clear that you HAVE to make a Google ID to access Loon
internet.

This poster should try some other mechanism ... some non-corporate mechanism,
and try to bring some benefits to India. If he succeeds, then I will support
his model.

I certainly won't withdraw support from Google over his bullshit blog post
which has zero touch with reality.

~~~
notahacker
People who assume that the developing world is some kind of ad-free utopia are
also in for a rude shock if they actually visit it for long enough to realize
the only painted buildings in many villages are decorated with the branding of
a mobile phone service provider, the fridges are all supplied by beverage
companies and even the crummiest of market stalls are decorated with sponsored
bunting. I don't think they'll be too upset if Bollywood banners follow them
round the web and some analyst working with anonymised data sees an surge in
searches for Hinduism.

Frankly, if anyone loses from adequate speed internet in remote locations in
the underdeveloped world, it's Western corporations that aren't very good at
targeting their ad spend...

------
macspoofing
Google wants to wire-up Africa because they know that a certain percentage
will use their services (it's hard to completely avoid Google on the
internet). So what? The entire argument rests on the premise that profit does
not align with public good. That's just completely wrong.

------
j_baker
_Remember that both Google and Facebook are publicly‐traded transnational
corporations that are legally mandated to act in the best interests of their
shareholders._

This is a _huge_ misconception. The idea that corporations should maximize
shareholder value above all else is very modern and likely came from Jack
Welch. The truth is that there is no enforceable legal mandate for
corporations or their officers to maximize profits.

[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-
sharehol...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-
value-myth/)

~~~
pkteison
That blog is an extremely shallow ad for a book. Is there some new development
that invalidates Dodge v Ford Motor?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company)

~~~
j_baker
From the linked wikipedia article:

 _Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder
wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth
maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal
mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision]
protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading
of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that
interesting._

------
hahainternet
The attempt to compare being shown ads to being a slave is the most offensive
thing I have read in months.

Aral should be ashamed of himself. He should publicly apologise.

------
Tichy
Providing internet access is not the same as locking somebody into their cloud
services.

There is such a thing as win win in business. Yes, Google benefits if more
people are on the internet, because of the network effect - more people
searching, more stuff to be found, and, yes, more potential advertising space.
It's useful even without lock in.

~~~
jlees
Depends on the implementation, though; if you need to create and sign in with
a $foo account to use the sponsored-by-$foo internet connection, it's not
lock-in per se, but has some of the same effects.

~~~
Tichy
That kind of thing would indeed be questionable, but it didn't sound to me as
if Google wanted to implement it that way. From their history it also seems
unlikely (ie giving away Android).

------
mattschoch
The last paragraph: "Yes, of course everyone deserves access to the Internet.
But they deserve access to an open Internet where they can own their Digital
Selves..."

Does everyone actually deserve internet access? Is that an inalienable human
right? If people want something of value, they have to provide value in
return. If Google and Facebook see value in the people's data, then they are
willing to give them "free" internet. It is a choice to give those
corporations your data in exchange for their services.

Saying that people deserve something can be dangerous. Who provides these
things that we all deserve? If there's no economic incentive, why would
someone spend the money to provide goods and services for other people?

~~~
icebraining
There are hundreds (thousands?) of years of discussion on positive versus
negative rights, and not everyone is convinced either way. It doesn't seem
particularly fruitful to open that can of worms here.

------
kisil_reboot
> Google and Facebook want to give everyone access to the Internet because
> they need more raw materials. More data. The first sentence seems basically
> true, but the second, and the general gist of the article, is off-base. Both
> companies make money, on aggregate, when there are more people using the
> internet. Google gets more searches, more youtube views. Facebook gets more,
> and more active, members. Both are monetizable eyeballs without needing any
> fancy data extraction.

Do we really need to posit some nefarious lust for "your data!!1" here? I
don't see the need; the simpler hypothesis has enough explanatory power.

------
jaegerpicker
Bah! Who cares who if Facebook or Google makes money if it's a net win for
everyone. They make money but those using the service learn how to use the
internet and a few learn more then that. Those few then figure out how to
build their own ISP. It's a conversation and a conservation has to have two
sides. This provides a reason for FB and Google to start the conversation.
It's a rising tide that lifts everyones boats. Sure it's optimistic of me and
maybe those that use FB's internet never rise above that but I doubt it and
it's better than nothing.

------
StavrosK
Sorry, do we know that you'll only be able to get online if you only have a
Google account? I haven't heard anything like that, and if, as I suspect,
nothing hints that this will happen, then this is much gnashing of teeth about
nothing.

If Google _does_ require a Google account to get online, then, okay, it's not
as selfless as before, but it's still internet access where people had none
before. The possibility of accessing Wikipedia and Khan Academy is worth an
inactive Google account, at least.

~~~
achalkley
What is a "Google Account"? It's a fuzzy thing - they track you and sell you
without a log in or not.

~~~
StavrosK
Great, so completely free internet, with exactly as many strings attached as
everyone else gets, even though they don't get theirs from Google. I don't see
why people are complaining. Getting tracked is an issue completely orthogonal
to the internet access Google is trying to give people.

~~~
achalkley
You're telling me that you don't think every HTTP request could be tracked by
Google? Someone not on Loon wouldn't have that.

Could Google provide free internet without tracking people?

~~~
StavrosK
I'm sure it's possible. I don't think NSA-style tracking of all requests would
be in Google's best interest, as it wouldn't do wonders for their image.

~~~
achalkley
They don't care about their image. They care if they get locked up if they
don't comply.

~~~
shawn-furyan
Who is "they"? Google is an enormous organization that goes to great lengths
to protect its image. As an organization, I think Google is more concerned
with its image than jail.

------
TeMPOraL
I'd argue that Google-sponsored Internet is better than no Internet. Also I
don't see any "digital enslavement" plans embedded in Google or Facebook
initiative. Just giving those people Internet will be enough to benefit Google
and Facebook hugely, as probably significant percent of newly connected will
start using their services. They don't need to capture every single person,
therefore they don't need to conspire to "enslave" anyone.

------
tlarkworthy
Yeah Microsoft gives windows to schools. Generous bastards.

~~~
kintamanimatt
They do that so students grow up knowing one operating system: Windows. Such
students grow up, graduate, and then feel more comfortable using it in the
workplace (and at home); it ends up being a net positive for Microsoft. If
schools didn't receive free Windows licenses, such schools might end up using
Ubuntu! Imagine how that would affect Microsoft's future profits and product
adoption if the next generation of workers (especially those potential .NET
programmers, CTOs, etc) were more familiar and comfortable with Linux!

~~~
pjmlp
No different than the program Apple had for American schools, if I am not
mistaken.

~~~
jff
Come now, we don't talk about the Apple machines in almost every American
elementary school from kindergarten on. Surely these children won't be trained
into using Apple systems; the real imprinting will occur 10 years later when
they take high school keyboarding classes.

------
simonebrunozzi
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes)

~~~
pigscantfly
Part of my favorite passage from the Aeneid :); the literal translation is a
little different from the English phrase that's become popular, but I've
always thought it amazing that people from that time period had the same
insights we get from very modern situations. (see: quis custodiet ipsos
custodes, Catullan love poetry, etc - it's a shame more Roman literature
doesn't survive).

------
axelfreeman
I am pretty sure my internet service provider is already doing that. I don't
see the difference. Did i miss something? They didn't say it's free.

~~~
annnnd
What, your ISP already mines data about you and sells it? If I knew that about
mine I would leave it ASAP.

~~~
axelfreeman
They sell statistic data and have a "DNS failed" page with there "search
engine". They also sell my phonenumber if i don't opt-out.

~~~
lucb1e
Can you back that up, or at least name that ISP?

------
gz5
Even if a "neutral ISP" was providing the access, they could always partner
with a Google or Facebook to produce the same result.

Arguably some Internet is better than no Internet but I don't think there is a
complete solution until there is enough competition at the local access that a
user can choose between a completely open pipe and Google like alternatives?

------
bayesianhorse
Even if Google restricts the access only to their products (and they don't),
you are better off with "corporate-tainted" internet than without.

------
rasur
You've read "Who Owns The Future" too then?

------
lmartel
TL;DR: trading Africa's third world problems for first world problems is a bad
thing because targeted advertising.

------
digerata
This could better be said as beware of Content Providers in control of the
Pipes.

