
"Free Basics" - Myths and Facts - chdir
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fy8rGMIleYNPGNNZvO16_NLyPSJ0_JhCLU0Uo6W8Ogk/edit?pref=2&pli=1#heading=h.mvl2arsbzxqk
======
shas3
Earnest question: on the presumption that Free Basics (FB) will become popular
if launched, trying to shoot it down means that many people (mostly poor) will
not get access to the internet. How does one address this? Now, this activism
can do two things: 1. Force FB's hand to make it truly open, 2. Delay
universal access by regulation that prevents FB from starting up. If the
result turns out to be the former, well and good. If the latter ends up
happening, many people will be deprived of internet access and the
opportunities for social and economic growth that come with it.

A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to
deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these
articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free
2G and older network services?)

~~~
leohutson
Facebook doesn't need to do this.

They have a huge market share on the real internet, they could simply give
more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow.

The fact that are attempting this means that they obviously don't believe in
the longevity of their product on its own merits, so they are going to try to
lock in a few users while they can.

~~~
mkagenius
> could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still
> grow.

By giving data without any restriction would result in its consumption via
video content (e.g. Youtube) and will not be of any use to facebook.

~~~
awqrre
Facebook also host videos

~~~
mkagenius
Not in the free basics version, just text content.

------
cmurf
Facebook!=the Internet. If it's only Facebook and friends, this is not at all
anything like the Internet. It's a closed platform, like 25 years ago, with
walled gardens.

So people need to stop saying those criticising Free Basic are in favor of
depriving poor people from the Internet.

Quite honestly this Free Basic thing is so absurd to me on the face of it I
hope Facebook doesn't modify it as a result of all the increasing criticism.
Then it can just face plant, which is where it ought to end up.

Even my ISP doesn't MITM my 443 connections to other services.

~~~
sidthekid
There are people who do not have access even to the walled gardens of 25 years
ago.

This link is a response by Facebook to criticisms of Free Basics -
[https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-
opponen...](https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponents/)

I don't understand why no progress is better than some progress. This
initiative is not meant for people already connected to the internet.

~~~
pdkl95
The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet
features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading
Facebook's propaganda is pushing.

The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman
that can control and monitor all data access with _de facto_ monopoly power to
hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own
internet on their own terms".

Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the
long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East
India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's
yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries.

It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the
merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on
this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.

~~~
fwn
>The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman
that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to
hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own
internet on their own terms".

While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's
faulty. Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access
anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics.
People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet.
Those people are not spectacularly different from us.

By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice
that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.

~~~
pdkl95
> anti-free-basics mindset

Ahh, the usual attempt to create factions.

> Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere.

The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can
prevent who people can access. Yes, other providers already exist (removing
any _need_ for "free basics"), which is why Facebook is abusing their position
as a social network to manipulate people into supporting their plan.

They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of
the most powerful political tools known to man.

> And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics.

If you read any of the other threads on this topic, you will find examples
Facebook's tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free
basics". That is their _existing_ power as a social gatekeeper. The entire
point of this new plan is to extend their gatekeeper position into one of the
largest untapped markets on the planet.

Without even considering how this position would allow Facebook to monopolize
the market, their power as a gatekeeper to monitor social interaction (why do
you think they MitM encryption?) and manipulate public opinion is so powerful
it should be seen as a _threat to national sovereignty_. You probably think
this is hyperbole, but I'm deadly serious. As I mentioned in a previous
thread, the end game of this _power to use friends against each other_ already
exists in China under the name Sesame Credit. I recommend watching this short
video[1] about it by Extra Credits. Their perspective as game designers about
how people can be manipulated with the mechanics of a platform is key to
understanding how these new powers work.

> anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.

(minor suggestion: it's customary to note when you edit a post)

It only looks sloppy if you only focus on the narrow framing Facebook is
pushing in their propaganda. If you consider the last few hundred years of
history and the recent-ish trends in political and social power, Facebook's
power grab is obvious.

One of the problems with your analysis, I suspect, is that you seem to be
assuming that some sort of market solution will sort itself out. This is an
obvious fallacy: "the market will fix things" is not a law of nature, people
are not in any way "rational" in the way economists use the term ("homo
economicus" doesn't exist), and the very idea of a market only works _if-and-
only-if_ consumers have accurate information, which is exactly what Facebook
is manipulating.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI)

~~~
fwn
I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at
this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all
unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!) There is little to no
actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in
public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN.

Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case.

> The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook
> can prevent who people can access.

I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing
other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your
local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their
delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread." It
tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what
the bakery is actually doing.

While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure
you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is
"Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting
their plan."

"Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody
is lobbying for his cause which I don't like."

Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both
do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the
first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal
relationship?

"They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of
the most powerful political tools known to man.'

Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably
advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against
small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism.

> [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free
> basics".

Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess
you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software
paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples
autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small
grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work.

Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment
the opposing campaign gets to describe them.

You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about
economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the
policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's
consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the
"but there's no perfect information" memes.

~~~
pdkl95
> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political.

Of course they are. _Everything is political_ , because everything affects
_people_. The idea that some people have that technology (or anything else) is
somehow _not_ political is extremely naive.

The point of my comment was that you seem to be addressing the _factions
themselves_ as a topic instead of discussing the subject matter itself. Your
new reply does a lot of the same.

> reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it?

Obviously. Are you suggesting that any critique must be made in the framing
Facebook has been setting with their propaganda? Facebook gets to control the
stage?

> Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button

Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.

Did you miss Facebook's scandalous "emotional contagion" experiment? Or the
various other stories about how they manipulate what people see? As usual,
Facebook likes to fall back on calling these tactics "an accident" when they
are caught.

> size-based exceptionalism

WTF are you talking about?

Why are you inventing a straw-man big-vs-small argument while ignoring that
they are a _gatekeeper_ with the power to monitor and manipulate social
interaction.

> You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about
> economists.

Nope. That was 100% based on your suggestions that the market would sort this
out.

~~~
fwn
> Everything is political, because everything affects people.

You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of
giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on
civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a
public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider
"extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal
democracies.

> [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...]

Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic.

People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding
restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many
infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case
Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it.

All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc.
are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides.

Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia)
for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that.
What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular.

> Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.

Right.. [https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png](https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png)

> [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out.

You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument,
because I think you are mistaking our debate with another.

> > size-based exceptionalism > WTF are you talking about?

If you could elaborate on what you weren't able to grasp I'd have the
opportunity to explain it further. :)

------
jimrandomh
This isn't quite hitting the core of the problem. If someone only has
Facebook's Free Basics, then they can't conduct business on the Internet with
anyone who hasn't partnered with Facebook. Not reading content, not publishing
content, not downloading apps, not shopping, not email. They can only do these
things if they pay a telecom for real internet access. From a user's
perspective, that's still an improvement, because they would've had to pay for
real internet access and now they have the option of maybe not.

But what if you want to conduct business with those people who only have Free
Basics? Then Facebook has a veto over your ability to do so. They will make
you partner with them, jump through hoops, and maybe pay them money. If you're
thinking of competing with them, they can destroy your business with a flick
of a switch. It's a power that begs to be abused. Free Basics isn't bad for
users, it's bad for _everyone else_.

~~~
fwn
While I am generally in favor of free basics, I believe this platform argument
to be one of the better.

Don't know why you are downvoted, though. Maybe for the "isn't bad for users"
half sentence.

------
vankap
I can't say how this turns out, but it makes me happy to see the debate this
is generating. A lot of people who have never heard of net neutrality are now
hearing and thinking about it. That's a definite positive for India and and
open internet.

------
jMyles
"better known as a Man-in-the-Middle attack" \- instant classic right there.

~~~
chris-at
OT but our company firewall does this as well. You can't use https unless you
install a internal root cert. Never understood how this can be legal.

------
gravypod
What is... Free Basics? I have not heard of this until now.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
New name for Internet.org. They changed it since last time people made a lot
of noise about it being "neither the Internet nor a dotOrg".

~~~
gravypod
Ok, but what is internet.org? From what I gather it seems like they made an
ISP but select who the ISP connects to.

This response is very ironic. \- "It is not a closed system" \- "You will
[only] be able to access services from __operators __around the world. "

Who/what are operators, what was internet.org, are there technical details for
us to see, what is it's goal?

~~~
nileshtrivedi
Basically, all traffic to the sites on Internet.org is sent to Facebook's
proxy servers (including HTTPS with "dual-certificates", as in MITM attacks),
and no charge is collected from the user. Users can use either an Android app
or mobile browser on featurephones. Facebook decides which sites get on this
platform. (Hence no Twitter, Telegram etc)

~~~
gravypod
So they have made up a way to ruin the internet for a select--small--number of
people.

It's nice to see the crap that facebook does get put in the spotlight
recently.

------
alkonaut
Shouldn't a service like this use a small whitelist of sites that it provides
for free (Google maps, Wikipedia, ...) and use https throughout rather than
not at all? I completely understand if some services are easier to provide for
free, e.g. static/cachable content that can be cached close to the users.

Also if I were Facebook I'd remove any and all Facebook services, just to
prove I'm being altruistic and not trying to lock in third world users to my
ads...

Really if fb can't do this then some nonprofit should.

This looks a lot like when the US got internet access, with AoL trying to be a
quasi-internet within internet. I suppose you can argue "it worked" because it
connected lots of households and now they have proper Internet, but the
European model where governments subsidized massive backbones and
municipalities created last-mile networks making "proper" internet available
straight away looks more attractive in retrospect. Realistically, poor
countries will have to follow the US model...

------
sidthekid
"... by throwing in short-sighted plans, you are preventing the Government and
the market from thinking up plans for giving permanent access to the full
Internet for these poor."

I am on the fence on whether to support Free Basics or not, but the scale
tilts here for me towards Free Basics. This response is like saying, "No,
don't help them - you'll prevent us from helping them at some point in the
future." The poor person in the village, on the street, shouldn't have to wait
five more years for the internet(in whatever form) when a solution (though
partial) is available now. Suppose the government does introduce a proper
'Free Internet' plan two years later. I don't think anything would stop them
from switching from the biased Free Basics to the better plans.

------
Animats
"Wow, this file is really popular! Some tools might be unavailable until the
crowd clears."

What resource at Google Docs doesn't scale?

~~~
LeoPanthera
The link for some reason goes to "suggestions" mode. You can switch the mode
at the top to "viewing".

------
nimish
Formerly known as Internet.org

