Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Communications Facebook Government The Almighty Buck The Internet

Facebook Will Still Back Internet.org Despite Indian Gov't Disdain For Free Basics 76

Mickeycaskill writes: Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will continue its Internet.org efforts in India, despite one of the initiative's programs – Free Basics – being banned by the country last month. Internet.org hopes to give more people access to the Internet, but India ruled 'Free Basics,' which offers free access to Facebook and selected apps and services violated net neutrality ethics. Speaking at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Zuckberg said the ban was "disappointing" for Internet.org's mission but hoped other programs such as satellite Internet and drones would be more successful. "It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to the Internet," he said. "In India we'll focus on different programs. We want to work with all the operators there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Will Still Back Internet.org Despite Indian Gov't Disdain For Free Basics

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @04:11AM (#51573357)

    "It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to the Internet," he said.

    But hes not helping them get access to the internet. He's only getting them access to facebook and facebook sanctioned sites. So the Indian govt is right.

    Also one thing that developing countries dispise is it's citizens getting enslaved to a overseas companies services. So fuck off zuckerfuck. If you really meant what you say about internet access then you would be giving them unrestricted internet to any website including your competitor's.

    • "It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to the Internet," he said.

      But hes not helping them get access to the internet. He's only getting them access to facebook and facebook sanctioned sites. So the Indian govt is right.

      Also one thing that developing countries dispise is it's citizens getting enslaved to a overseas companies services. So fuck off zuckerfuck. If you really meant what you say about internet access then you would be giving them unrestricted internet to any website including your competitor's.

      Mark isn't just owed a "fuck off" for this. Facebook as a corporation should be stripped from any and all associations with net neutrality, since they are clearly demonstrating they cannot even begin to understand the true definition of that, nor would I expect them to given their view of the world through Facebook-colored glasses.

      I mean damn, I thought AOL users were delusional in their own little key-world...

    • by thsths ( 31372 )

      > He's only getting them access to facebook.

      That is correct, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        That is correct, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

        Yes. I can think of a lot of other things he could be doing if he really wanted, like helping modernize India. Or you know, basic things like running water to your home, and a toilet that isn't the street running beside your house, or directly into the river...where you're also getting your drinking water.

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          Sadlhy a lot of people in the 1st world really have no idea what real poverty is and genuinely think that internet access is as important as food, water and sanitation. Their idea of hardship is not being able to tweet for a day.

          • genuinely think that internet access is as important as food, water and sanitation.

            Many people think that because it is true. Per dollar invested, internet access does more to alleviate poverty than any other investment except vaccinations. It promotes literacy, enables farmers to get better prices for their crops, makes it easier for people to buy pumps/toilets/etc, and helps people learn about nutrition and how disease is spread. It makes it easier for people to organize to fight corruption. In many 3rd world countries, the internet greatly lowers financial transaction costs, so peop

            • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

              If you really believe that then need to get out there and travel a bit instead of getting all your information about the world online.

              "Per dollar invested, internet access does more to alleviate poverty "

              An economists answer. Sadly having net access does nothing for an empty stomach or a baby dying of disease.

              • Sadly having net access does nothing for an empty stomach or a baby dying of disease.

                ... except helping to prevent those problems from happening in the first place.

                • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                  No one has said that the internet is a 1st world luxury. But if you really want to help people, the internet is way down on the list of things that someone in developing countries actually needs. A baby dying of disease can't eat the internet, it won't give them vaccinations or treatments for that disease either. It won't help the technologically illiterate in any of those cases either, because many of those people who don't have running water or basic sanitation or even food, are in many cases illiterat

                • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

                  The internet can prevent droughts,famines and the spread of disease can it? Do tell us more...

            • Because none of what you stated was being done before the internet.lol how in gods good name did we get our of the darkages? We went to the moon, grew crops, build toilets, learned about nutrition,create vaccinations,life saving drugs LONG before the internet. And long after its gone.
    • Yep. They should have access to every last bit or nothing at all. Definitely not like the west where we learned a lot through communicating, social circles, restricted BBS, filtered library connection.

      Indeedy, the only way forward is an all or nothing approach. No one should donate anything.

      Fuck off yourself.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        It would be one thing to give cheap/free access to Facebook in a place where unrestricted internet access was already widely available and affordable. However, offering restricted internet access as the only choice keeps other providers from springing up to compete with that service.

        Facebook's project will hold back the spread of internet access to more people, it will delay it. So, yes, in this case, nothing is better.

      • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @08:40AM (#51574065) Journal

        No one should donate anything

        Some donations are good, some are bad. Mother Teresa objected to foreign medical aid donations because they allowed the government to abrogate responsibility for helping its own citizens. Sometimes when you donate something, you end up reducing its local value to such a degree that you destroy the ability for anyone to produce it locally, which ends up just fostering dependence without doing anything to alleviate the underlying problems.

        But that's irrelevant because we're not talking about donations here, we're talking about illegal cross subsidy. Facebook is not donating money to fund access to the Internet, they are subsidising the sale of devices to access Facebook so that they can sell eyeballs to advertisers. This kind of market distortion is exactly the sort of thing that antitrust laws exist to prevent.

        • Mother Teresa objected to foreign medical aid donations because they allowed the government to abrogate responsibility for helping its own citizens.

          Mother Teresa objected to palliative pain relief because it interfered with holy suffering, as well. On the other hand, in order to get help from the Gates foundation, you have to sign agreements protecting big pharma to the detriment of your population if you have a real health crisis.

      • No one should donate anything.

        Out of curiosity, what's your view on welfare payments?

    • "It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to the Internet," he said.

      But hes not helping them get access to the internet. He's only getting them access to facebook and facebook sanctioned sites. So the Indian govt is right.

      Also one thing that developing countries dispise is it's citizens getting enslaved to a overseas companies services. So fuck off zuckerfuck. If you really meant what you say about internet access then you would be giving them unrestricted internet to any website including your competitor's.

      It's almost as crazy as billions of people having no access to clean water. Which is far more important than Facebook.

  • Is as bad as using adblocker.

  • "Disdain"... astroturf much, /.?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It has nothing to do with Internet. Yes, I know it's supposed to be called "Free Basics", but why the internet.org domain? This is highly disingenuous.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @05:15AM (#51573531)

    ""It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to the Internet,"

    So Free Basics, eh?

    Mark, I know this is "crazy", but perhaps if you stopped pimping fucking Facebook as "the Internet" , people might be more open to your damn flavor of philanthropy.

    Pisses me off when a billionaire can't afford common sense.

    • Pisses me off when a billionaire can't afford common sense.

      Da Zuck has plenty of common sense . . . he sits back, and asks himself . . . "How did I get to be a billionaire?" . . . "Oh, yeah! Facebook! The more users the better for me!"

      I think Da Zuck is going to pull the whole drug dealer trick in India: give out free samples, and get Indians hooked on Facebook until they determine that they cannot live without Facebook. Then start charging them for it. Facebook will even be able to pin the blame on the Indian Government: "Facebook: We would like to keep co

    • Pisses me off when a billionaire can't afford common sense.

      Well, given that pimping Facebook as "the Internet" consistently seems to have already and will continue to make him extra billions, he probably literally cannot afford* not to do it.

      *Where I use afford not in the "cannot do it without starving" metric, but the "holy fuck, that's a large sum of money for me" metric.

      • Pisses me off when a billionaire can't afford common sense.

        Well, given that pimping Facebook as "the Internet" consistently seems to have already and will continue to make him extra billions, he probably literally cannot afford* not to do it.

        *Where I use afford not in the "cannot do it without starving" metric, but the "holy fuck, that's a large sum of money for me" metric.

        Heh, you pretty much nailed my underlying meaning there.

  • The gall of those Indians to not want a significant part of their population stuck in an American Internet Company Town. How dare they, don't they know that Zuckerberg knows what's good for them?

  • "Indian government's disdain for free services..."

    Wow. Just wow. Who is timothy and why does he have seemingly untrammelled access to posting slanted stories on Slashdot? Is he the new owner's nome de plume? Got a Facebook connection, or what?

    The facts of matter are internet.org would provide India witha free walled garden Facebook-limited, Facebook-defined, Facebook-mined, Facebook-exploited subset of the real internet. It was nothing but digital colonialism, a new different of reservation for a different

    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @10:45AM (#51574659) Journal

      "Indian government's disdain for free services..."

      Oh the irony of reaming Timothy while you merrily misquote. It says disdain for "Free Basics", which is the name of the thing Zuckerburg is offering, not "disdain for free services".

      It's not surprising there's disdain for Free Basics: it's not philanthropy, it's a cynical hardware subsidisation scheme by a for profit company for profit.

      • Timothy, take note. It's "Free Basics" as a term in quotes. If you just write it like two English words, free basics, it could be (and was) taken as a description of the service. Especially in a headline, with its universal capitalization.

      • Oh the irony of unjustly reaming out someone because you didn't read their post by acusingthem of unjustly reaming someone out because they didn't read someone else's post.

        Double decker wow.

        Read my post again.I took Fuckbook and Zuckerfuck to the shed , for exactly the points you're citing. I took timothy tot he shed for mis-representing zuckerfuck's "free services" as something other than exploitation, which is exactly what they are and what the article, and timothy, tried to hide.

        Learn.To. Read.

        • Learn.To. Read.

          Oh the irony.

          zuckerfuck's "free services" as s

          You have still proven yourself unable of reading the actual title never mind the summary. Timothy called them "Free Basics" because that's the name of the product. That is not a value judgement on them.

  • by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @07:37AM (#51573917)

    "It's crazy we're sitting here in 2016 and still, four billion people in the world don't have access to my creepy data-mining advertisers' database

    ftfy

  • What is crazy is 'the Big Z' is worrying about 4 billion people not having internet access when there still a 'few' people out there that do not have food, clean water, medicine, etc. If he would take some of his and FaceBooks 'net worth' and use it to address some of those problems first, he might gain a little credibility. I believe you should be allowed to make all the money you can (even with something with as little true value as FaceBook, IMO), but if you want to earn some respect, put a little of
  • Hey Mark, how about paying a data connection to everybody and let everybody access any site they like? Then I'll believe you.

    • Hey Mark, how about paying a data connection to everybody and let everybody access any site they like? Then I'll believe you.

      How about you chip in money son. Then you can talk. He is offering something for free with some limitations. If you want the entire internet then you can pony up the cash and pay for it like everyone else.

  • Before they start worrying about what kind of internet their populace uses, perhaps the Indian government should do something about modern plumbing in their country. No other country on earth has DESIGNATED SHITTING STREETS in their capital.

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam

Working...