Why are people so insistent that Facebook's Internet.org is a bad thing?
Is no internet really better than limited internet? These people have almost no internet right now. A lot of these countries can now use Google and Wikipedia. It's either total freedom for free, or no freedom at all?
In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet. With no internet, people WANT the internet very badly. With no internet, ambitious entrepreneurs see a market willing to pay for their services.
No internet births wireless ISP's and Co-op internet and mobile providers.
If there is a free, but limited, internet then customers might not be willing to pay money for internet service anymore and there won't be enough demand for a business to try to bring real internet to those areas.
> In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet.
All of the proposed charitable objectives(as opposed to Facebook's own interests) would be served by just providing free internet with a limited data cap.
Customers would want more data badly, local entrepreneurs would be free to make any kind of app to serve the poor, rather than being restricted by Facebook's guidelines, and can even be not disallowed to compete with Facebook.
The problem with internet connectivity in India is that rural areas do not have good coverage or fiber or even copper. Internet.org doesn't address any of this, so this is NOT aimed at the poor.
It is instead aimed at teenagers, who can't pay for their own data packs yet, but still have access to smartphones. Facebook is trying to ensure that no startup ever takes mindshare away from Facebook.
This is a good point that both supporters and opponents of this initiative should gather more information about: who actually accesses services using this Facebook program? Is it in fact the previously unconnected?
And vice-versa: when you talk to the unconnected, what is preventing them from getting online? Are data costs the main barrier? Anecdotally (and admittedly my personal conversations aren’t an exhaustive survey) in India even from lower-income people I hear people talk a lot more about needing money to buy/repair a phone compared to anyone saying they can’t afford a data plan.
Most of the "previously unconnected" are people who know the value of the Internet (It's used pervasively enough that people who don't use it still have an idea of what it is), have the capability of using it, but don't want to. Very few of them are ones who can't afford it. I mean, they exist, sure, but for them the cost of a phone that can handle the internet well is probably the deciding factor, not the data plan prices. These phones cost Rs. 5k+ (cheapest I can think of) and last maybe two years without repair. Basic data plans can come at Rs 100 a month, prepaid data is generally even cheaper. No, the data plan is not the deciding factor here.
Internet.org is probably more likely to move existing Internet users onto the walled garden, because everyone loves free things.
I don't know if this is practically true for a lot of these countries. In a lot of these countries, a vast majority of the population doesn't have easy education, and are often poor.
Countries like India have a much better percentage (but still small) of the population that can afford the internet, that ISPs are incentivized to grow and expand. Countries like Zambia -- not so much (I don't actually know if internet.org is in Zambia). I don't know that a small business in Zambia has the capital to expand considering how many people can afford it.
> All of the proposed charitable objectives(as opposed to Facebook's own interests) would be served by just providing free internet with a limited data cap. Customers would want more data badly, local entrepreneurs would be free to make any kind of app to serve the poor...
Great point. "Small data payloads" would become a factor in competition, too.
I don't see how the people who don't have internet, are making choices in any way at all?
They have no way to make an informed choice, or even to make a choice, and there is no media who speaks out for them. There is no wallet for them to vote from, and no competition to choose from.
Instead the whole move is designed to prevent them from making choices, in the future, choices that are contrary to Facebook's market domination.
> It's so easy to make choices for others when you already have what they don't.
I see your point, but most safety regulation could be criticized the same way. We as a society won't allow you to buy or sell a house that doesn't meet building codes, meat that doesn't pass inspection, etc.
This is a restriction on your freedom and could be viewed as paternalistic, but it also prevents poor, desperate people from getting sick living in asbestos houses.
Is Facebook-controlled internet like an asbestos house? Arguably.
> With no internet, people WANT the internet very badly.
Actually, the opposite is true. When people have no internet, they don't know about the internet, and therefore don't want it. When people have a little internet, they realize how great the internet it is, and want more of it. It's like offering a free sample; no different than any other marketing tactic. If the thing being marketed is a good thing, then surely the marketing tactic is good? ( as long as it isn't exploitative or anti-competitive or anything)
> With no internet, ambitious entrepreneurs see a market willing to pay for their services.
It appears Facebook is one of those entrepreneurs. There was no internet; now there is internet.org and whatever those other ambitious entrepreneurs have offered.
Just because it doesn't throttle services doesn't change the fact that internet.org gets to decide what services get on the platform in the first place.
"Developer participation on the Internet.org Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms . Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Internet.org, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook.
Submission does not guarantee that your site(s) will be made available through Internet.org."
If you can't open any other website other than the 50 or so provided by Facebook, then it is in effect a limited internet.
Arguments that "saying it did not block or throttle services", tries to imply that "This is not the Internet, so we are not blocking anything on the Internet". That's just hogwash.
It is. Free lane is fundamentally similar to fast lane.
Also, if you use Internet.org, you cannot use other websites unless you stop using Internet.org, you get a "fuck off" message for any other website you want to visit, even if you want to pay for it with usual pay as you go data charges.
I think the main issue is the name not the product. If it was honest about what it was then fine it's just modern AOL, but the name internet.org is at minimum misleading.
Because the spread of a network made and paid for by advertisers will hinder the spread of the network most of us have now, which is mostly paid for by the users.
Internet.org is not mis-named, it's an intentional hijacking of the "internet" brand to refer to a different network with different people and institutions in control.
> Question: Is being a slave really worse than being poor?
Good question. I'd rather let people decide that for themselves than have wealthy people half way around the globe decide it for them by removing one option.
In some cases or instances, conditions of one might be better than the other. However, universally, I'd say almost everyone would agree that being a slave is bad/wrong/immoral.
From a purely survivalist approach slavery is without a doubt a better proposition because it is nigh impossible to break away from poverty.
But lack of free and targeted internet is not poverty. Internet is already extremely cheap in India - cheaper than USA for example - and is easily available via mobile phones that are more ubiquitous than toilets!
To say that Internet.org is an alternative to no internet is not only disingenuous it is basically a mockery of 'them 3rd worlders...' as if they will never get internet without Internet.org. And that too for India? A country that has achieved more feats in technology domain than many of the first world countries (and before solving the problem of toilet)? It is hard to sell product to a level-headed person.
Not to say that Indian government is squarely going to reject Internet.org - Indian government - specially judiciary - is mind bogglingly corrupt - but it should be rejected.
I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid.
In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making.
In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"
Except voluntarily purchasing an inexpensive product nohow "limits your freedoms." I purchase a lousy cup of coffee from a vending machine; am I a slave if it's inferior to Starbucks? Reductio ad absurdum.
It is not voluntary when it is the only thing left in the market. We are already living in an age where some places on this planet consider basic internet connection a human rights issues so no, internet is a necessity.
Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. The notion of positive liberties breaks down under the slightest scrutiny.
What you're really saying is that somebody has a positive obligation to provide every human on earth a particular product, presumably at a price that each can "afford." This claim presents several unsolvable problems.
First, there's no objective way to determine what this price might be for each person.
Second, if we could establish a price for each individual person to get "full internet," you must admit that any person might prefer Zuck's "partial internet" at, some lower price. If this person's preference runs counter to my sensibilities, that's my problem to get over.
Third, on whom does this obligation fall? Are you personally the one obligated to provide every human this product? If not you personally then whom? Zuck? Santa Clause?
Fourth, on what basis shall we draw the list of products that I will demand be affordably provided me? And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt, except professor never assigned Locke or Hobbes.
Internet access seems rather high up the hierarchy of needs especially in countries where starvation remains known. What shall they demand next, Ferraris? Reductio ad absurdum.
> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
> The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.
It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.
Sorry, yes HN apparently has a limit to nesting of replies, so I cannot reply directly. I'm sure that replying a level up is bad etiquette, so this is the last time I will do it.
I will leave it at this. My position is that there is no sound philosophical basis for positive rights (the claim that one person is entitled to receive something that must be produced by another person). On other words, my rights are only to be left alone to satisfy my desired ends by my chosen means without force or coercion by another party.
This speaks nothing of what "society" or one's fellow man "ought" to do. Rights to no involve "ought."
Sure, but let's understand we've changed the subject. If the claim is that a state should not, by threat of violence, block a private firm from serving a voluntary customer, I could not agree more. That's entirely different from saying that someone has a positive obligation to provide a certain product.
Except now it's a right I can expect someone to provide minimum viable Internet for no or low cost.
In England you can get internet access via their computers for out-of-work benefits in JobCentres; there's other Internet access in public libraries; some hospitals and gp surgeries provide wifi.
That Internet is not great - slow, with quite a lot of limits, but it is provided.
Because something is in fact provided, be it by the government or the market, does not in the least confer to me a right. If it does, then I have no idea what you mean by "right."
The fact that I can rely on the existence of high-quality open source software to use in my projects does not mean that I may demand that you or anyone else write it and offer it for free. If I go hiking on the trail near my house, I know that I can expect "free" plastic bags in the city dispenser to clean up after my dog. Their existence does not make it my "right" to receive them for free.
I pointed out where the UN says it's a right. You say that it's not about being cut off, it's about provision, so I point to it being provided, and now you say that's not what you mean either.
I dunno what to tell you. Access to the Internet is seen as a right in some regions, and you shouldn't be kicked off the Internet for IP violations, and someone should be providing access to the Internet, and in England that someone is national government (Department of Work and Pensions) and local government (public libraries).
That's because better alternatives exist that provide access to the whole Internet free of cost. For example, Mozilla is trying out a couple of variants of free Internet in Africa and Bangladesh:
