This is the same company that fought against US legislature (SOPA or whatever it was called) but created its own non-neutral internet.org for the third-world.
The only race that these giant advertising media/companies are in is the race for: total-observation
and unlike the evil government from 1984 , these leech-like data-harvesting entities are celebrated by their peers for re-inventing MySpace and IRC over and over again.
Whether the latter is worse than a gaggle of bloggers trampling all over the plants, I'm not so sure anymore. But either option still seems better than a handful of corporations owning the garden.
They choose to provide some websites for free to the third world while leaving open the option to buy the full web if they choose too. How is that evil?
How is that evil?
An ISP chooses to provide you with FREE access to some websites but if you want to pay more to get the full access you can.
Facebook is doing this for free for the poor and privileged people in the West are complaining because it threatens their ideologues about free internet all the time no matter what.
It threatens its users ability to understand and interact with the rest of the world.
Facebook isn't doing internet.org for "the poor". It's doing it for itself, to get them to click on ads, and model their behavior, in a higher-walled garden than almost any we've ever seen (except maybe the Great Firewall, itself) and which they control.
So, sure. I personally repudiate the notion of "evil" as just so much post-modernist, perspective-based narrative bullshit; I completely agree with you that internet.org isn't that. But it's certainly not a philanthropic venture, by any stretch of the imagination. It serves Facebook's ends first, and its users distantly second.
I highly doubt that there is much marketing dollars to be spent selling to the poorest third of the world population.
The walled garden includes facebook because naturally its founder considers it an essential service. It also provides job search and informational resources. This is not a bad thing and it does not preclude these people paying for full internet if they choose to. But, while they don't have the funds and resources to do that, thank goodness Zuckerberg is making some essential websites available.
Having an entire generation growing up under the brand of a corporation is effectively priceless.
Nothing says that internet service providers have to offers you unrestricted, unlimited and fair access to the internet; if you read carefully not even your contract.
One other interesting factor is a friend commented on the flagged status post with the suicide prevention hotline number. I don't know if that added any weigh to the overall decision making.
I'm used to expressing unpopular sentiments in many circumstances, but at some point if you want to communicate rather than troll you need to try to at least adapt the style to the medium.
Case in point, calling The Guardian "socialist" here will offend both a lot of Guardian readers and a lot of socialists (many of whom read the Guardian, but still don't find it remotely socialist), and yet it serves no purpose in the comment. It ends up drawing attention away from the point he tried to make (poorly).
I don't really understand this; most likely I think that you are communicating, and people don't like what they're reading. Sure, posts that don't communicate are downvoted, but so are posts that do communicate. I haven't actually read the comment we're talking about, because I can't, but my point of contention is that receiving downvotes should be considered as some sacred message to re-think your life. It shouldn't, it just shows that an elite group of HN users have decided they don't like what you're saying. It might be for good reasons or bad reasons.
In the past I have tried to reach out to HN's medium, writing posts I think are thought out, non-attackative, presenting an interesting viewpoint etc. only to have them downvoted 2 or 3 times, and I suspect it's because I espouse a particular political viewpoint, even when on topic. Some other of my comments have been upvoted, with much the same content.
I have discovered that it's very hard to predict if your comment will be upvoted or downvoted, so I stopped caring so much. It's clear that the HN mods or perhaps PG himself want to manipulate people into espousing points that everyone else likes, even going so far as to gray out comments to make them harder to read, of course so that people won't want to read them.
I found that I was being stopped from posting things I thought were interesting or perhaps controversial, and instead I was searching for things that would get me upvotes. This is in stark contrast to the old style imageboards, in which everyone's post is given an equal footing.
Downvoting is a dirty little system, and it's one of the things keeping me from posting more on this site, which is filled with relatively intelligent discussion on all sorts of topics.
And do not start me talking about how the HN moderators have decided that sometimes "You're submitting too fast, please slow down" when I want to post something in quick succession (about twice per hour even). It makes it impossible for me to have discussions here with this. I don't know if it affects other people (I suspect it does not), but it's so frustrating. Sometimes I have to collate two or three posts into one to avoid being prevented from posting. Reddit doesn't do that, the imageboards don't do that, in fact almost no other forum does this.
I agree with not caring if every comment is upvoted, and not panic if you get some downvotes, but often it is a matter of learning to conform just a little bit to the style of the given forum.
It does not have to mean moderating your opinions much, but much more often moderating their form. E.g. I'm politically far to the left of most HN'ers, yet I have written comments here quoting Marx that get upvoted. I similarly see plenty of right wing comments too that get upvoted. But HN will be brutal with "dumbed down" or inflammatory political comments.
I try not to make my comments dumbed down; recently I was have a discussion about the theory of surplus value, and I wasn't downvoted there, but somewhere else I talked about wage slavery in a similar way and I was downvoted there. Both times I tried to support what I was saying with quotations and reasoned arguments. So I don't know if downvoting is an effective way of helping to enforce a particular standard of comments; as on Reddit, I think it's more likely to be used just to downvote what people don't like, and that applies to propertarians too or any position that's unorthodox.
I don't know exactly how it works with the voting and all here. My own comments get downvotes sometimes, but its either because I wrote it in a way that was to open for interpetation or too vague.
No, it means you might want to reflect on how you're saying it.
Maybe the hive mind is not that aggressive after all?