
“I want to respond to Marc Andreessen's comments about India” - coloneltcb
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102645335962321
======
tyre
Good damage control by Zuckerberg, but notice that his comment says nothing
substantial about why Free Basics _isn't_ similar to colonialism.

It is absolutely about growth and user acquisition. They are using their
capital to subsidize and lock in a monstrous market. Is that bad? There are
reasonable arguments on both sides.

But Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a social cause.

If it were, Zuckerberg would have sold his shares and reinvested the cash back
into Facebook when announcing his plan to donate $45bn. There's a reason
billionaires invest their money in charitable funds, and not all of it for tax
reasons. There are some things markets just aren't great at solving.

~~~
mliker
lock in a monstrous market so that they can what? advertise to poor people who
can barely afford clean water and food? yeah, great strategy...

~~~
Chinjut
And why exactly do you think Facebook is offering this service? (And,
furthermore, why exactly do you think they are offering this service with
access only to Facebook and Facebook approved sites, rather than to the
Internet at large)?

[On edit: I seem to be getting a lot of downvotes on this post, yet no actual
answers to the question]

~~~
davidiach
Are people who use free basics required to create a Facebook account or can
they simply just use Wikipedia and other apps/websites?

------
dfine
Context: [http://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/fast-feed/marc-
andreessen...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/fast-feed/marc-andreessen-
riles-up-twitter-after-defending-colonialism-in-india)

------
lhnz
> Early on in my thinking about our mission, I traveled to India and was
> inspired by the humanity, spirit and values of the people. It solidified my
> understanding that when all people have the power to share their
> experiences, the entire world will make progress.

This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of
promoting your brand to young progressives.

In 2016, what better example of 'humanity', 'spirit' and the 'values of
people' is there than the inspirational social network, Facebook?

~~~
ashark
> This is a great example of how virtue signalling can be a great way of
> promoting your brand to young progressives.

I'm not up on, ah, promoting one's brand by way of _virtue signaling_ , but
_is_ this a great example? It reads like something out of a bad college
application essay.

~~~
lhnz
'Great example' as in representative, not as in exemplary.

I find attempts to financially capitalise on looking Good gross and wanted to
draw attention to it. Zuckerberg does it quite often but he's not the only
one.

~~~
ashark
Ah, OK. That's a relief. Thanks for the clarification. Given the kinds of to-
me-awful marketing/ad copy I've seen praised before I really wasn't sure.

------
ajain15
Whats flabbergasting is that Benedict Evans completely got away even though
the things he said were waaaaaaaay more offensive than Andreessen (Using a
derogatory phrase and being utterly aware of the context behind it). This kind
of ignorance is dangerous coming from kingmakers of the valley

------
strictnein
Andreessen's apology earlier today:

[https://twitter.com/pngmarca/status/697490886037368832](https://twitter.com/pngmarca/status/697490886037368832)

------
redthrowaway
Does anyone else find these "Sorry for badmouthing _x_ , I'm a huge fan of _x_
" apologies offensively artificial? Is there any reason to effuse about the
people you insulted beyond trying to look like you care about them? Both Zuck
and pmarca went on about how amazing India is, and both of them came across as
bullshitting.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Genuine question: Did Zuckerberg badmouth India? If so, I missed it. I thought
he was just trying to distance himself from Andreessen's tweet. If so, I don't
see how this is an instance of a ""Sorry for badmouthing x, I'm a huge fan of
x" apology.

~~~
redthrowaway
Zuck didn't, but his post is FB firefighting. When a company's most high-
profile investor and board member starts a fire, the CEO puts it out. Whether
or not you want to call it an apology is immaterial to the substance of my
point: that kind of language comes across as incredibly insincere and
patronizing.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Hmm. I think I see what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying that
you're put off by the tone of the apology itself, and not so much the quick
reversal, which is what I had thought you were focusing on. Is that right? If
so, how do you think it could have been improved? I personally found the
comment (or apology, or whatever we should be calling it) pretty sincere
sounding.

(By the way: I had forgotten that Andreessen was a board member and large
investor. Thanks for reminding me.)

~~~
redthrowaway
Just ditch the "I'm such a fan of India's amazing culture and people" bit. No
you bloody well aren't. Has Mark Zuckerberg ever publicly written or said
_anything_ praising India's culture or people that wasn't part of facebook PR?
He might like India, he might admire its culture and its people, but it's ever
so slightly suspicious that the only time he mentions this fact is when he's
doing damage control.

It reads like it was written by a crisis management team, and it probably was.
Apologies are most effective when they both are and are perceived as being
sincere. It's fine to say pmarca stuck his foot in his mouth, it's fine to say
that his expressed views are not those of facebook, and it's fine to say that
facebook sincerely believes that offering a limited version of the Internet to
poor people, for free, will be a great emancipator. But I think it would be a
more effective apology if it came across as heartfelt, and that means leaving
out what really sounds like self-serving praise for India.

I think what really bugged me is that it came across as something a politician
would say. It was insincere and designed to offend as few people as possible.
Which I find offensive, because it's not how real people talk. It's like the
audience is being talked down to.

------
obulpathi
Marc Andreessen's comments showed the true color of the Facebook.

------
newman314
I found it flabbergasting when I first saw marca's tweet yesterday.

Ill-informed tweet indeed from someone that should have known better or better
yet not said anything.

------
xorblurb
There is utterly no content in this reponse.

( edit: s/this/there/ )

------
tn13
Marc was ill informed just like many in west. A lot of people think that India
was economically better off under an oppressive colonial rule.

Facts: \- India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant.
\- India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people
often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for
the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose) \-
India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been
around 6% or more.

~~~
mdw
This post would do better to provide citations for these facts (is this 1%
growth for nearly 200 years?), and what was the original purpose for the term
'Hindu' rate of growth?

Also, why brand 'many in the west' as ill informed - was that nessisary?

~~~
tn13
You can always look this information yourself by couple of google searches.

Many in west is a perfectly valid use of phrase. Deep Hinduphobia causes a lot
of (even liberal) westerners to look down on Hindus and India in general.

For example Benedict Evans displayed his ignorance using the phrase "Hindu
Rate" of growth in reply to that infamous tweet. This is both Hinduphobic and
racist in my opinion.

Original background of "Hindu rate of growth".

Independent India followed Soviet Styled socialist policies (should I say
Bernie Sander styled). India could not grow under such policies not matter
what government did. An economist Prof. Raj Krishna concluded that this was
India's destiny to remain poor linking it with Hindu concept of Karma. He was
not joking. Marx and Weber have serious influence on India's leftist academia
(which is almost all academia). Marx dismissed Hindus as barberic because they
worshiped trees and monkeys. Where as Weber argued that Hindus and Buddhists
can not achieve prosperity through industrialization and capitalism because
according to him they lacked individualism. Prof. Raj Krishna's phrase
originated there.

Research by a Belgian Paul Bairoch has collected data about India and China's
economy since 1700s. Both China and India contributed to world GDP 24% and 33%
respectively which fell to 20% in 1800.

Here is the link with details :
[http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/s_gurumurthy/Boss-
re...](http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/s_gurumurthy/Boss-read-the-
true-history-before-speaking/2013/04/06/article1532597.ece)

------
kaonashi
Is there a technical reason to limit the content provided, or is it all for
commercial exploitation?

~~~
gearoidoc
Its to create an impression within India that the internet == Facebook.

------
lokedhs
Zuckerberg could easily dispel any doubts by simply not including Facebook in
the free basics offering.

The fact that he doesn't tells me more about his motives than anything he
says.

------
josh_carterPDX
I liked that Marc took responsibility for what he said. I don't like that his
apology included that he spoke about something he was not properly educated
about. In the long run it's not going to do anything to diminish his career,
but it will cause others to second guess things he speaks about in the future
and there will be a cloud that hangs over him as a result. Hope he bounces
back. Sucks when you put your foot in your mouth.

------
davesque
Whether or not there are darker reasons for Andreessen's statement, it really
confuses me why people in such prominent positions don't stop and spend some
time considering how comments like his might be interpreted. Zuckerberg's
response is not surprising in any way and also conspicuously lacks any direct
comments about Free Basics.

~~~
tyre
Because "people in such prominent positions" are people too. They make
mistakes. They say stupid things about subjects they don't understand. They
sometimes don't empathize or realize how something might sound to someone in a
position that they (the speaker) has never been in.

Remember, these Valley idols share almost all of their DNA with the rest of
us.

~~~
davesque
Yes, but I, an average nobody, know that basically no one will notice the
things I say in most cases. Therefore, I feel a lot less cautious about
spouting off online (whether or not this is wise). Someone in his situation
has to be thinking differently and, if they're not, maybe they need a reality
check like this.

------
known
"Power will go to the hands of rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will
be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly
hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in
political squabbles" \--Winston Churchill

Andreessen repeated the above quote in his lingo.

------
pj_mukh
If I wanted to give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt he may have been
referring to the time in the 80's when India was closed off to foreign
investment (and not British anti-colonialism).

Even as an Indian though, I don't know if the closing of investments was due
to "anti-colonialism" or just a general socialist, USSR-like policy?

~~~
ajain15
His later tweets seemed to suggest that he was going for the latter, so it
might have been a wrong choice of words for him BUT his partner in crime
Benedict Evans said something even worse and then seemed to be justifying his
comments for the rest of the evening

------
ddw
Why does it say "Kevin Rose and n others like this."

I don't have FB so I'm not logged in. Does FB have a list of "celebrity" users
that it highlights when they like a post?

------
tn13
Happy to MZ coming forward to apologize and clarify, I would have imagined he
would have stayed out of it.

Those ill informed comments from Marc who is otherwise libertarian were
disparaging.

~~~
phatfish
Yup, must be a LOT of money at stake.

------
horsecaptin
India, under the Raj was being plundered. PLUNDERED. Here, watch this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4)

------
sg47
I wonder what Marc Andreessen thinks about blacks and slavery.

