
Zuckerberg defends free basics in Times of India op-ed - BrooklynRage
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/#_ga=1.141352114.1896674499.1451315281
======
discardorama
OK, I wasted some time reading that. Let me dissect a few points he makes.

> We have collections of free basic books. They’re called libraries. They
> don’t contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.

They're called "public" libraries; not every library is free. I remember once
trying to enter Stanford's library (Green?), and they refused to let me in
without a Stanford ID.

> We have free basic healthcare.

In America?!? Hell no. You have emergency room care, and it is _NOT_ free.
Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.

> And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and
> information that can help them to achieve all those other public services,
> and all their fundamental social and economic rights.

I couldn't even parse this sentence. What does "achieve" mean here?

The problem with people like Zuckerberg is that they think the poor would be
fine with a walled garden Internet.

Imagine if Coke came along and said: we'll provide all poor people who don't
have access to clean water with free Coke. This "free basics" seems the same.

You want to spread Internet to everyone in India? Let the Government install
free WiFi spots; maybe in every railway station? Give people access to free
WiFi at, say, 256kbps. The Government of India should be stepping in to make
the Internet free and accessible, not some billionaire sitting in Palo Alto,
sipping his latte.

~~~
dayon
I'm against Free Basics and am boycotting Facebook, but playing devils
advocate...

> They're called "public" libraries; not every library is free. I remember
> once trying to enter Stanford's library (Green?), and they refused to let me
> in without a Stanford ID.

Zuckerberg is referring to public libraries, not paid ones. The public library
offers a set of books that, while not comprehensive, provide at least some
free knowledge. Free Basics is analogous in that it offers some free services.
Could Zuckerberg do more? Yes. Could public libraries have more books? Yes.

> In America?!? Hell no. You have emergency room care, and it is NOT free.
> Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in America.

This isn't what he's saying. Some places around the world do offer free basic
healthcare. And he's talking conceptually, not concretely. If Zuckerberg ran a
healthcare startup and offered free basic healthcare to a region, would they
complain that it doesn't offer _all_ possible services? Would they rather have
no healthcare than some?

------
apalmer
The saying is dont look a gift horse in the mouth, but the way Zuckerberg is
consistently lobbying and pushing for the implementation of programs under an
altruistic banner that also happen to largely benefit himself is somewhat
counter productive.

Their is a reason most super wealthy people who have made a big impact through
philanthropy have tended to make it their focus after they have explicitly
detached themselves from their money making enterprise, and/or focused on
areas that do not overlap with their money making enterprises...

~~~
cornholio
Zuck is making a great ass of himself. The conflict of interest is glaring,
and that's why no one will take him seriously even if he's right.

He should simply let the professional lobbyists, spin doctors and astroturfers
fight for the idea and realize that nothing he says can help the cause.

------
splintercell
This whole Facebook Free Basics issue is painful to hear about. A corporation
wants to provide free internet to the poorest of the poor people in the world,
but the richer of the poorest people don't want that to happen, because the
corporation has a business plan.

A company should and MUST make huge profits off helping poor, this is the only
sustainable way by which people will be able to come out of poverty.

~~~
discardorama
> A company should and MUST make huge profits off helping poor, this is the
> only sustainable way by which people will be able to come out of poverty.

And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe that
formula is better than breast milk.

And this is why Monsanto ruins the lives of farmers, driving many to suicide.

~~~
splintercell
> And this is why Monsanto ruins the lives of farmers, driving many to
> suicide.

Monsanto does not force farmers to not use their product in the way they want.
IP enforcement (which a lot of westerners seem to think it is about) is nearly
absent in this countries. Farmers kill themselves because of debt from the
bank (which is and will be enforcable).

Look at India, farmer suicides are a huge problem in certain states, and the
moment you cross over the state boundary the problem goes away. These states
have few things in common:

* A land ceiling limit, most states in India have a limit of maximum agricultural land to be limited to 14-20 something acres. This means that when you're farm is failing, you have very limited buyers for it. Only a buyer who doesn't already own enough land which touches the limit can buy the land.

* Monsanto seed is used by a LOT more farmers than those who commit suicide. This is called survivorship bias. You only see the seeds used by farmers who committed suicide, you don't see the farmers who succeeded because of it. Thankfully some research has shown otherwise. [http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/14...](http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/14501)

* Farmers suicide rate in India per 100k: 1.55 Non farmer suicide rate in India per 100k: 10.3

* 5 of the 29 states account for 79% of farmer suicides: Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala. The common theme is these states have higher industrialization than the rest of the states(except for MP, that state is backward as fuck). Keep in mind, a factory owner can buy a LOT more land than agricultural land limit would allow.

* Most of the stories westerners are being fed about Farmer suicide are from mid-2000s, when suicide peaked. When you look at the long term trend, it seems that more farmers used Monsanto's seed, farmer suicide comes down to historic lows. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Fa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Farmer_Suicides_Time_Trend_India.png)

> And this is why in large parts of the world mothers have come to believe
> that formula is better than breast milk.

Regarding this, I admit I don't know much, but I learned this lesson long time
ago. Be very ware of stories generated by people with an agenda. These facts
and figures are generated by the left wing of India. It's not difficult to
show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's recent influx of
immigrants, it might be the case, but I can promise you, this statistic will
be thrown out almost immidiately.

~~~
dalke
> It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is caused by it's
> recent influx of immigrants

Really? By including this one statement you made me think you are part of the
nationalistic right.

Sweden's "rape epidemic" is mostly because other countries under-report rape.
If a woman comes to the police and say that her husband had raped her almost
every day for a year, then that's 300+ rape reports. Other countries might
report that as a single rape report, or declare outright that it's impossible
for a husband to rape his wife.

See for examples [http://www.geocurrents.info/geography-of-crime-and-
punishmen...](http://www.geocurrents.info/geography-of-crime-and-
punishment/misleading-murder-and-rape-maps-and-the-the-sweden-rape-puzzle) and
[http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2013/12/01/sweden-gender-
par...](http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2013/12/01/sweden-gender-paradise-or-
capital-of-rape/) .

There are certainly people who argue that this isn't true, but that analysis
is not simple, while you argue that it's "not difficult".

~~~
splintercell
> Really? By including this one statement you made me think you are part of
> the nationalistic right.

You clearly misread my post under your own bias.

~~~
dalke
I certainly have biases, as do you. How is your comment concerning Sweden's
rape statistics relevant to the rest of your point?

~~~
splintercell
Quoting myself: > It's not difficult to show that Sweden's rape epidemic is
caused by it's recent influx of immigrants, it might be the case, but I can
promise you, this statistic will be thrown out almost immidiately.<

