

Nofakeinternet.org - ghosh
https://nofakeinternet.org/

======
timboslice
TL;DR:

Zuckerberg's partnership with telecom giants, Internet.org, provides access to
a fake Internet where selected services are prioritized over others. This
scheme threatens innovation, free expression, and privacy online.

It blocks many of the websites, apps, and services the world loves from being
made available on equal terms.

The fake Internet will also restrict access to local service providers
struggling to get a foothold online.

~~~
justaman
Yeah, but this is a _temporary_ solution that is aimed at sparking a higher
quality of living in these 2nd and 3rd world countries. Fact is, they dont
have the infrastructure to support services like Netflix or Facebook in its
current state. You must understand the need for quality connections to places
like Web-MD or Wikipedia. Given enough time, without question these places
will implement net neutrality. Its just a matter of playing the cards you are
dealt. p.s. Fuck Mark Zuckerberg

~~~
tombrossman
I think it is unrealistic to assume that the original few who enjoy their
little walled garden will embrace net neutrality once these places have better
infrastructure. Can you think of any examples of this happening? If you were a
shareholder for one of the original companies would you be happy about it?

Also, I don't think very highly of Mark Zuckerberg's ethics, especially with
regard to users privacy, but he's a very effective leader and there's no sense
getting angry with his success.

It is up to governments to regulate markets, we can't expect CEOs to do
anything but promote their own agenda. If you want to get mad at someone, take
it out on government regulators who are corrupt or otherwise fail to promote
competition.

------
fwn
I don't get it. It's not that internet.org/facebook prevents anyone from doing
something similar. So if you don't like it, make your own free internet.

~~~
captn3m0
This should ideally be stopped by regulation. If not, we still have the right
to criticize and protest against it.

~~~
fwn
That's clearly not my ideal.

I can see how we first-worlders really like net neutrality and everything. I
do see that we fear that our web access might get more expensive if access
prioritisation is successful somewere else, but: Since we all already do have
access to the internet it just appears to me to be endlessly selfish from us
to make them wait 10 years to get the full internet for themselves.

~~~
captn3m0
I live in India, FWIW.

My major gripe with internet.org is that its not really "for the poor". The
minimum requirement for internet.org is an Android smartphone, which costs
atleast 6000 INR (100 USD).

If someone has the purchasing power for an Android smarthphone (over say, a
dumbphone that would cost 1/6th of that), you definitely have enough to pay
for data charges (which are in the range of a 2-3 USD per month at most). I
used to browse internet on Opera Mini on a "pay-as-you-go" plan (something
like 0.1 INR/40kb I think) and I paid less than 1 USD/month for that.

My usage was certainly minimal (HN + GMail + Google News + Facebook) with
images turned off. But now that I have the purchasing ability to buy a
smartphone, I do have enough to pay for a costlier data plan as well (3-4
USD/month).

Paying <5% of your phone cost a month for data charges is not that hard.

------
socalnate1
Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet
got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a
critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.

