
Mark Zuckerberg's Free Basics argument doesn't address conflicts of interest - williswee
https://www.techinasia.com/disconnect-mark-zuckerberg-scam-indias-poor
======
chdir
What's mind boggling is the amount of money FB is spending on advertisements &
lobbying so that they can be allowed to be "charitable". What's funny is that
Mark's getting upset that people don't want "disingenuous charity".

There are a thousand effective ways in which you can help the underprivileged.
Partnering with ISPs to decide what's "basic" internet is not one of them.

P.S. Many professors from India's top tech institutes, startups, entrepreneurs
& other eminent people have spoken against "Free Basics".

[https://github.com/net-neutrality/no-free-basics](https://github.com/net-
neutrality/no-free-basics) \- Feel free to add more with a Pull Request.

~~~
bko
> P.S. Many professors from India's top tech institutes, startups,
> entrepreneurs & other eminent people have spoken against "Free Basics".

Or essentially everyone that would not be a target market for this service.

~~~
Manishearth
Do they have to be? They can be smart enough to rationally weigh the pros and
cons here.

Really, there aren't any pros of Free Basics when you take into account the
fact that a similar, net neutral business model can and has been implemented
(by Aircel). The details are different (data cap or speed cap instead of
walled garden), but the business model is the same -- get people to start
using the internet for free in a limited way, and some of them will come to
the non-free services. But net neutral. You can basically take Facebook and
the walled garden completely out of the picture and it would probably have
similar efficacy.

Why can _Facebook_ and Zuckerberg support free basics -- when they're not even
_from_ India, but these smart Indians cannot oppose it because they're not the
target audience?

~~~
bko
Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide
what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor
Indians. They're essentially deciding the sacrifice that the poor will make
(by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality). Their words
and beliefs bare no cost but will be involuntarily paid for by others.

The pros are that its a service that people have a choice to use so if a
customer freely chooses to do so, that person is obviously off. If you, or
Aircel, want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so. A
different model that you feel is more effective is not an argument to restrict
another competing model.

~~~
chdir
> elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be
> provided to poor Indians

What's you definition of elite ? There's a very diverse background of people
who have spoken against "Free Basics". Also keep in mind, that your average
Joe won't even bother to read the fine print about the pros/cons of "Free
Basics". So in a way, you have to depend on someone with a keen interest to
voice an opinion.

~~~
bko
I didn't mean "elite" as a slight, but rather as a generalization of those
that are speaking out against a service that they will likely never use. It's
as though I find something distasteful and I don't personally benefit from it
so I favor banning it. It is no cost to me since I don't personally benefit
from the product or service. This type of attitude leads to the social
acceptance of a lot of censorship (e.g. vulgar material, I have nothing to
hide, etc).

I believe the keen interest lies with those that are going to potentially use
the service. These "elites" don't know the people that could potentially use
this service. They don't know their values, their circumstances, or anything
about them. It is presumptuous to think that those outside groups somehow know
whats best and can choose for those being forced to forgo the service what
sacrifice they should make for their ideals

------
quanticle
My main concern with Free Basics is that it's literally a reinvention of AOL,
using a different shade of blue.

Moreover, I find it extremely hypocritical of Mark Zuckerberg to push a system
that would have prevent his own company from becoming as big as it has. Put
another way, he would be screaming bloody murder if it was Google offering
Free Basics, and forcing everybody to access the web through Google+.

~~~
cm2187
But a free AOL. Net neutrality makes sense when you pay for it. When someone
offers you a free service it is hard to complain about the quality. You might
refuse to call it "charity" but I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

~~~
nabla9
It's not so simple. If the company who has monopoly power[1] provides free
services, or if the free service can be used to gain monopoly power, there is
possibility for market failure.

If it would be OK to do anything as long as the service is free, it would make
sense for Chinese government & Baidu & Huawei consortium to provide High
Quality Free Basics for every American who wants it.

\---

[1] Remainder to avoid fruitless arguments: monopoly power ≠ monopoly
[http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Monopoly_po...](http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Monopoly_power.html)

~~~
cm2187
But you can say the same of any free service. What about free news website,
free email services, etc? They all could (and do) drive competition out of
business. But they provide a service which is just good enough for most
people. And if people want something better they will pay a premium for it
(like access to The Economist website).

I am sure that most Indians who have the means to pay for broadband will not
want to be restricted to that facebook service. In fact the more restrictive
facebook makes it, the more likely it will not prevent competition.

------
marcoperaza
It's odd that the article regards privately owned schools, hospitals, and
libraries as absurd abominations. Private schools are a huge part of the
American education system, and they're not the problem. Even when the funding
is public, lots of jurisdictions in the US are moving _toward_ privately owned
schools, i.e. charter schools. The Catholic Church runs private schools around
the world and is widely lauded for it. A big portion (most?) of the best
American universities are private. 80% of hospitals in the US are private.
Private is good.

Can someone explain for me how Free Basics would be harmful for anyone? If
there's an alternative way to bring full internet connectivity to people who
currently can't pay for it, wouldn't that alternative beat Free Basics in the
market? The article briefly mentions "public internet access" as an
alternative, but the Indian government has already failed the 400 million
Indians without electricity, and 1 billion without internet. "The Indian
government can probably get the money somewhere" reveals a total
misunderstanding of the scale of the problem and places a laughable faith in
the Indian government, the incompetence of which is in fact the single largest
factor holding India back. Why not give market solutions a chance?

~~~
cmurf
Private is also classist. Either you're already wealthy and the cost doesn't
matter; or you're working harder and saving less money for retirement as that
money is siphoned off on a kid learning how to be a good worker bee and being
socialized.

Private schools exist from an aristocratic history. England has this nonsense
also. Meanwhile there are countries who take public education seriously and
there is essentially no such thing as private education. Look at how
Scandinavian countries do this. And the Germans are offering U.S. college
students free degrees, many of them stay in Germany. And by and large the
education level in these countries is more uniform, where in the U.S. it's
again, quite classist.

So if you're in favor of feudalism, yeah private school is a great idea.

As for Free Basics, I think it's for the users to decide whether it meets
their needs or not, but for that to be possible Facebook shouldn't be
referring to what they offer as an essential service. Facebook itself is not
essential. A full, unabridged Internet connection, is essential. But that's
not what's offered. Further, the connection with the user requires dual
certificates, so Facebook can see what everyone's doing even if they aren't
using Facebook proper - something an ISP doesn't even get to do. The harm is
the obfuscation.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Germany has a three tier class system built right into its education system.

~~~
cmurf
it is not a class system, it's integrating some aspect of meritocracy. It is
performance, not wallet based.

~~~
icelancer
Performance is highly correlated with household income for fairly obvious
reasons, regardless of system.

~~~
cmurf
Of course, but there's a difference between income being relevant yet
incidental, and embracing it as a completely appropriate model to relish in.

------
vedaprodarte
"If Zuckerberg really wants to sell Free Basics, he needs to stop trying to
convince people that it’s some self-sacrificing public service and admit what
it actually is: a company offering a service that’s (supposedly) beneficial
for both users and the company in question."

This is a good argument. This is not a charity act but a business decision.
Although it brings something good to the Indian, Indian also helps Facebook to
expand its business.

~~~
bko
There is nothing wrong with expanding a business by providing a service. Every
service that we use voluntarily, charitable or otherwise, makes our lives
better off otherwise we would not be using it. I can't help but think that the
poorest in the world are more helped by the efforts of private profit
motivated enterprise than that of governments and charitable organizations.

> The World Bank and African Development Bank report there are 650 million
> mobile users in Africa, surpassing the number in the United States or
> Europe. In some African countries more people have access to a mobile phone
> than to clean water, a bank account or electricity, the agencies add. [0]

Perhaps its time to rethink what organizations are best suited for raising the
standard of living.

[0]
[http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2013/africa%E2%...](http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2013/africa%E2%80%99s-mobile-
youth-drive-change)

~~~
TeMPOraL
It doesn't have to be either-or, and I'm saddened that so many people still
think that government solutions are always superior to private ones, or the
other way around. In fact both have their strengths and weaknesses, and we
should learn to evaluate which one fits a given problem better - or even
structure a combination of both. For instance, mobile phones are a great
success story of market economy, but mobile _networks_ universally start to
suck as they grow, and have to be heavily regulated.

------
himprak
Indian politics has trained people well to see through Zuck's strategy and his
TOI article only exposes his immaturity about what works/doesn't work in
India.

It's not difficult for people to understand this initiative violates net
neutrality and is an attempt to create a "separate internet" where budding
entrepreneurs/content providers have no choice but to pay Zuck to be
onboarded. This is akin to license raj
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj))
that was demolished way back in the 90s.

------
dnautics
This argument is a non-starter. We do indeed allow private organizations to
create libraries. Moreover, the conflict of interest exists even when the
state (not to be confused with society) participates. How do we make sure our
public schools don't become institutions where the pupils are 'educated' to
blind obedience to the current president, for example?

~~~
vikiomega9
> We do indeed allow private organizations to create libraries.

Are those for-profit and not readily regulated?

> Moreover, the conflict of interest exists even when the state

But in this case the state is a democracy. Ideally conflict of interest is
non-existent.

~~~
paulmd
Sure. Typically they are specialized in a single type of content. For example,
JSTOR is a self-described "digital library" which provides journal access.
Your local movie rental store (or its competitor Netflix) provide
entertainment or educational content (movies and shows).

Of course they can be regulated just like any business or service. So could
this service, in fact. Forcing net neutrality for all service providers would
cut out a lot of crap and I'm convinced it's a long-term boon.

------
bluecalm
So Mark Zuckerberg made billions selling people's data contributing to a
business model which makes the world a worse place in exchange for a bit of
entertainment. Whatever, at least people semi-voluntarily signed up for that
(it wasn't obvious to many what the deal is before they got a big chunk of
their life locked in there) and they are getting their fix on regular basis.

So how is Mark using the billions now? Right, actively trying to make the
world much worse and closed place. A place which would prevent him from
starting his business in the first place. What world we live in that such
individuals are so successful :(

------
addicted
I don't get why Zuckerberg's or Facebook's intentions are even relevant.

It's a fairly simple question. If Free Basics, which violates net neutrality
(Facebook has never denied this, instead responding by saying that poor people
internet is more important than net neutrality) is allowed, then every ISP in
India will have the legal ability to violate net neutrality.

Indian providers are already terrible, and will almost certainly abuse their
powers to have both website providers, and customers, pay more to access
services. They will be providing different packages with the lowest tier only
giving Facebook access, the next one adding Bing, etc...

What we know as the internet, and the best parts of the internet, which
allowed companies like Facebook and Google to flourish in the first place,
cannot exist without net neutrality. Allowing Free Basics is essentially India
kissing the internet good bye, in favor of AOL style walled gardens.
Admittedly, there will be a wide variety of walled gardens to choose from, and
some of them may even allow you to talk to your friend in a different walled
garden.

But the internet won't exist anymore.

------
priyankt
Check this link for some good arguments against Free Basics -
[http://www.firstpost.com/india/iit-iisc-professors-call-
face...](http://www.firstpost.com/india/iit-iisc-professors-call-facebooks-
free-basics-misleading-and-flawed-in-statement-to-trai-2565542.html)

------
ipsum2
I don't get it. You can completely ignore using Facebook.com, and just use the
free access to Wikipedia, among other useful local services.

When I first got a Kindle, it had unlimited free access to Wikipedia. I
thought this was the coolest thing ever, and didn't think about net
neutrality, just a cool bonus that came with the device.

~~~
vaporsnek
You might not use Facebook, but the vast majority of other users will and
that's where the real problem lies. Unlimited free access to a non-profit
website like Wikipedia alone would be great.

------
chris_wot
It seems like the same old mentality of someone from outside a particular
society trying to impose rather imperious ideals in a manner that leaves them
open for criticism of their motives.

Zuckerberg might spend a lot of money on this, but an entire continent's
opinion is turning against him.

This is not going to go well for him.

------
jacquesm
India should do what Romania did: nothing. Deregulate all telecommunications
and create a free for all. They'll have the fastest internet and the cheapest
phone system with a couple of yours. It's not as if Indians aren't as much or
even more entrepreneurial than Romania (which still has a head start over the
neighboring countries because of this).

Corruption will likely not tolerate such a free market without getting a slice
of the pie, that's the biggest stumbling block.

~~~
Manishearth
Market forces are slow in some markets. It's very hard to get started in the
telecom industry in india, so you pave the way for an oppressive ologopoly
instead. There's no reason to believe that Romania's telecom industry and
market is comparable to that of India.

~~~
humanfromearth
What are the reasons to believe that it wouldn't work?

ANRC (the body that governs communication) in Romania I think did more (by
doing very little) for the Romanian economy than any other government agency.
It's funny because we used to hate them for not allowing us to get more
ethernet cables on the public infrastructure (which we payed for a nominal
price) because of some safety issues. I was working as and admin working for
one of those free for all ISPs. It's crazy how good and cheep the internet has
become since then.

What happened is that in a small city (250k people) we had about 30
independent ISPs and we had gigabit peering between ourselves. Scroll 5 years,
big companies come in and buys us all out, then slowly start replacing
ethernet with fiber. Scroll another 5-10 years, most have fiber in the cities
and gigabit connections at very low prices.

It can be argued that the little guys (ISPs) got a little screwed especially
those who haven't been bought, but overall the romanians got a really good
internet and that's all that matters in the end.

The take away here is that once people started getting used to low-cost mostly
local network + internet within a highly competitive environment, the "big"
ISPs had no choice than to provide at least an equal service.

It's true, that was a different time, but now it's even better, because
hardware is a lot faster and cheaper!

~~~
Manishearth
Looks like in your case you had an overregulating authority that loosened up.

That's not the case in India.

Also, note that India is much larger and setting up a network is a much harder
investment to make. If there's an oligopoly already active, they could simply
not let new ISPs get a foothold unless you set up all the infrastructure on
your own. And part of the problem of low internet usage is low internet
connectivity in rural areas (which is probably less of a problem for Romania).
That's not going to be solved by Facebook or market forces.

------
chenster
Poor people needs food and shelter, not Internet. That comes later when basic
life needs are met. Free Basic is not even Internet. It's just Facebook with
perks.

------
V-2
_" imagine that instead of building a public school, the area allowed a
private company to build and operate the local schools. If you lived in the
area, would you be in favor of these plans? Of course not, because the
opportunity for conflicts of interest is too great"_.

It really irks me when someone tries to convince me by speaking on my behalf.
Yes, I might be in favor on these plans.

 _" Exxon could build a school and then teach kids in its science classes that
fossil fuels are the healthiest way forward for our planet"_

And states don't do that? Pick up a history book from American, French and
Russian public school, see if they tell the same story...

 _" Penguin could build a library and stock it in a way that pushed more
people towards reading (and buying) Penguin’s books"_

So what, as long as other publishers aren't forbidden from doing the same
thing??

------
awalGarg
If it isn't too much of self-promotion, I'd like to leave a link to an article
I drafted when I first saw that advertisement:
[http://awal.js.org/blog/thoughts/2015/09/12/internet-org-
fac...](http://awal.js.org/blog/thoughts/2015/09/12/internet-org-facebook-
little-zoo.html)

tl;dr: even if we agree that FB isn't aiming at personal benefits here,
internet.org isn't useful. reasons in the article.

------
senthilnayagam
Why it is not called facebook.org and zero rating for only facebook?

Many facebook posts include links/videos to other sites, and almost all of
these will not work unless you pay facebook tax.

Most indians use whatsapp as it is cheaper(free) and offers more features than
SMS, that actually means people use data probably 2G, but vast majority of
these customers are not using facebook. free basic is to get the whatsapp
users to become facebook users.

~~~
marcoperaza
It's not only Facebook; that's why. Anyone can apply to join the program.
[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-
sub...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-submit)

~~~
neximo4
With Facebook's permission of course..

There's the facebook platform and all sorts of startups that have been
excluded for competing with Whatsapp or Facebook or being a threat to
facebook.

------
rm2889
> But it’s difficult to agree wholeheartedly with Zuckerberg’s mission in
> India when he’s apparently willing to make such a misleading, fallacy-ridden
> argument in an attempt to win more Indian supporters and discredit his
> opponents.

Unfortunately this is a winning strategy politicians follow in India to garner
support. Its getting better with education and the Internet, but it still
works to some extent.

------
SixSigma
Facebook's free 'basic internet services' have been shut down for 3 million
Egyptians

[http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-free-basic-
internet-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-free-basic-internet-
services-shut-down-in-egypt-2015-12)

------
balls187
1\. Free Basics and Facebook (aka FB). Definitely not a coincidence.

2\. What services are available on Free Basics? It does not seem very easy to
figure out what you can get access to.

3\. Internet.org by Facebook.

4\. Facebook is the gatekeeper of what sites are available on Free Basics.

------
golergka
> instead of building a public library, the town allowed a private publishing
> company to build and operate a library

But that's not what the alternative is. It would be correct to write "instead
of having _no library at all_".

~~~
pkd
That's incorrect. People in India already have access to pretty cheap
internet. A one day ~50MB GPRS pack costs $0.1 and can be voluntarily renewed
daily. That's ₹10. And for the extremely poor(who are being targeted by
Facebook) that's not a big sum to pay. You'd consider that if they can spend
$50 on a phone, they can spend that much once in a while to access critical
information like whether and crop prices. This is disregarding that monthly
edge packs for up 3GB data are available for less than $5 from most providers
and the speeds are very usable.

There is not such a huge barrier as is being portrayed by Facebook. A better
comparison would be a very cheap book rental store which can lend you anything
you want to a free private library which controls what and how you read.

~~~
golergka
Cheap != free. Free option on a market where cheap options exist != "instead".

------
nsns
well, as you would say in Hindi: _Kutte ki dum kabhi seedhi nahi hoti_.

~~~
jacquesm
English translation?

~~~
eklavya
A dog's tail can not be unbent.

------
dang
We changed the outrageous title to something that more neutrally expresses the
substance of the article. If anyone can suggest a more accurate neutral title,
we can change it again.

------
lazzlazzlazz
Is it better or not, for Indians, to have this or not? It sounds like a
significant advantage to Indians, and to Facebook, for this to go through.

------
tim333
I may be naive but I think Zuckerberg is actually trying to good rather than
hoodwink India. It's a possibility anyway.

~~~
statictype
I don't believe he's trying to hoodwink India. I believe he sees a lot of
potential for business growth here and I _think_ he also wants to do something
good and feel like he's helped make a difference somewhere.

The problem is that he's trying to kill both those birds with one stone.

------
MxHuang2
test

------
ikeboy
>Free Basics might still be the best short-term solution for some people. I’m
not interested in trying to decide for others what might be right for them.

Oh, so you agree that it shouldn't be banned, which means you're taking
Facebook's side, against the advocates that do want to ban it. Glad that's
clear.

------
nitin_flanker
nd at the end, FB addicts gonna use it rather than the poor section of Indian
society. Zuckerberg has an evil plan is disguise which he considers that the
world doesn't know, however, everyone knows.

~~~
__Joker
I feel "evil plan" is a stretch. The worst case of malice you can attribute to
FB is they are trying acquire huge untapped user base but disguising the fact
under sheet of public good.

~~~
jonathankoren
Well that's exactly what Internet.org and Free Basics is. Transparently so. FB
has 1.5 billion users in a world with 7.3 billion people. It's not an
exaggeration to say that pretty much everyone 13 and up with an Internet
connection that wants a Facebook account, has one. That means that the only
way you can grow your user base is to increase the number of people with an
Internet connection.

Zuck and Facebook do bill Free Basics as a charity, but yet, they're not
giving the Internet, they're giving poor people what Zuckerberg wants. They're
not hooking up Twitter are they? They say it's because of "agreements", but
really it comes down to the fact that they are paying the telcoms money, and
they want an audience for their ads. Now that's not immoral, but it's not a
charity, so don't expect people to say how great and benevolent they are. Now
FB could pay for the real Internet, but they don't, because they're not a
charity. It's this mismatch between rhetoric and actions that really pisses
people off.

We saw this before when Google first started operating in China. The Google
Triumvirate said, "Hey, isn't some Internet better than no Internet?" (The
exact same argument that Zuck is making today.) Of course, the Chinese had
Baidu at the time, and Baidu actually worked better for Chinese language
search than Google as well. The real reason Google wanted in China wasn't to
spread knowledge, but rather to get access to the 1.4 billion potential users,
because pretty much everyone with an Internet connection outside of China
already used Google.

