Facebook's Colonies 53
sarahnaomi writes: Facebook this week released a major report on global internet access, as part of the company's Internet.org campaign, which aims to bring cheap internet to new markets in partnership with seven mobile companies. Facebook says 1.39 billion people used its product in December 2014, and it's natural for the company to try to corral the other four-fifths of the planet. But aside from ideals and growth markets, the report highlights a tension inherent to the question of access: When Facebook sets sail to disconnected markets, what version of the internet will it bring? In its report, Facebook advocates for closing the digital divide as quickly as we can, which is a good thing. But when Facebook argues that, "as use of the internet continues to expand, it will exert a powerful effect on the global economy, particularly in the developing world," it's arguing that any increase in access is inherently good, which isn't necessarily the case.
Sure, some access is bad (Score:2)
Of course, not. If the access was provided by a greedy KKKorporation, rather than the benevolent government, it is already suspect.
And if the provided link somehow prioritizes the said KKKorporation (or anybody else), that's outright evil — better to not have any access at all.
(Gebyy zl nff...)
Re: (Score:3)
buried in your hyperbole is a real point though: some people blindly hate government and irrationally trust corporations. other people blindly hate corporations and and irrationally trust government
why can't someone be both?
me: i don't trust government. i also don't trust corporations
is such a person possible in your world?
if i express my distrust of corporations, in your mind that means i automatically love government? why?
it's kind of like those arguments about iran and nukes: if you don't want iran to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
a corporation will bust your kneecaps if you demand higher wages, and set fire to smaller competitors. and you have no recourse. this is american history
meanwhile, you can actually elect government officials, insist they pass anticorruption laws, and make them accountable to you. there is of course a brain dead cynicism that corruption is insurmountable, but the nordic countries and canada control corruption better than us. why can't we? and we can. and we shall
we just passed net neutrality, we're legalizin
Re: (Score:2)
Assault and arson are both bona-fide crimes, that a government has a right and duty to prosecute. I wish, the government busied itself with those responsibilities only...
Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them... Great example.
A major intrusion into property rights and violation of one's freedom to operate one's business the wa
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them"
There is a better way: make taxes voluntary, fund the government at zero cost through the Fed. The private sector creates at least an order of magnitude more money than government, so there is plenty of room to expand the public money supply.
Indexation of everything (including savings, salaries, transfer payments) eliminates any potential "inflation tax".
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the use of the IRS as an anti-opposition weapon by a sitting President [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
yikes! tell me who exactly passed "net neutrality"? i believe a very small group of APPOINTED bureaucrats, imposed their agenda with ZERO congressional oversight. they wouldn't even give congress(who is our elected law makers) a copy of what they planned on imposing.
i fail to see how this is "passing" anything. this is more along the lines of a executive decree, subject to the whims of whoever is in control at the time.
gay marriage, is overwhelmingly voted down in most states where it comes up to a vote or
Re: (Score:2)
you're not an intelligent person. you should stop talking about what you can't understand
Re: (Score:2)
>On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.
This statement is guilty of the begging the question fallacy, in fact it's begging SEVERAL questions.
You are making numerous implicit assumptions which don't hold up to scrutiny.
1) You assume that "reasonably free country" is a representative example of the places where corporations operate, but most corpo
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Now please eradicate the false dichotomy from your thinking that makes you think "anti-corporation" must equal "pro-government".
Then try answering me again and you may actually say something sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is corruption. which is not our fault
any other great insights genius?
Re: (Score:3)
If the access was provided by a greedy KKKorporation, rather than the benevolent government, it is already suspect.
It may be suspect, but almost any access is better than no access. If the access to the Internet includes access to Facebook (which is usually among the first things blocked by oppressive regimes), and other sites that allow peer-to-peer communication, then that is even better. So I have a hard time seeing why any increase in access is not "inherently good".
Re: (Score:1)
As long as they don't censor users, said users will interact and if necessary, place regulations upon the company. It's an unavoidable consequence of providing a medium from which a social system can emerge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice [hollowverse.com]... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for t
Re:Being disconnected might be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why people always bring up 1984 when we're living in a Brave New World.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
If voting moves entirely online, it's possible to disenfranchise you and take away your right to vote.
Frankly, I'd rather have the weapons pointed at us.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Begging the question, huh?
Despite being perfectly possible technically voting didn't move to telephone. And even if it did, AT&T — for all the love I have for it — would not dream of impeding such voting even when it was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be home
Re: (Score:2)
Begging the question, huh?
Online voting has been performed in both Arizona, U.S., and in Estonia
Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be homeless than to live in such a place?
This type of thing has actually occurred before, disenfranchising both Women and African Americans by preventing them, en masse, from getting to the polls. It's why it's felony voter fraud to do that, in most jurisdictions. Florida is famous for having, in a number of cases, sent busses to pick up African Americans, nominally to take them to vote, but in reality, to take them far away from their registered polling places until the polls
Re: Being disconnected might be good... (Score:1)
Actually he despised capitalism you ignorant ranter. He distrusted corporations and government equally. The only reason 1984 postulated communism as the excuse was because in 1948 it was the more immediate threat but even within 1984 he makes it clear that if it hasn't happened that way the capitalist future would be exactly the same for privacy and freedom.
This becomes even more obvious if you actually read his other works especially the non fiction articles. When you read 1984 again pay attention to what
Re: (Score:1)
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
You are laughably ignorant of history.
Google the history of United Fruit Company in Central and South America,
and take special note of the fact that the US Marines were used numerous times
to support the agenda of United Fruit.
In more recent times, only a fool doesn't understand that the wars in Iraq had quite a lot
to do with the "plans" of companies like KBR, Halliburton, etc.
In summation, you are utterly and completely full of shit about corporations not acting in
collusion with governments and the military
Re: (Score:1)
Abroad. I was talking about the threat of government vs. the threat of corporations of the same country.
Wow. This is the second time I am reminded of Hans Christian Andersen [wikipedia.org] on one day...
This was not really what I was talking about. But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege t
Re: (Score:1)
Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.
Citations needed. Badly...
Re: (Score:2)
You alleged "exploitation" of poor people in other countries by US corporations. I asked for citations and you are replying with Saudi, Bush clan, and CIA?
That's not a citation — that's FUD. Which corporation, which country, when and how?
Yes.
Re: (Score:1)
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice [hollowverse.com]... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for those "Liberals" of the past adoring him...
Um , Orwell was a well known socialist :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Wigan_Pier
Re: (Score:1)
Only as an opposition to Franco's fascism (Orwell fought in Spanish civil war) — and until he realized, that both Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the coin of Statism.
Whatever the Wikipedia article may say about the book, an actual quote from it says:
Th
Re: (Score:1)
"Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon."
Man the mods must be braindamaged. How about you learn from someone who was a Marine who knows how the system works. You are misinforming everyone here.
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent pl
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be happy to learn from him, how to operate a weapon, but why would an average Marine know "how the system works" any better, than a software engineer, a construction worker, or a janitor?
But if you hold Marines' political savvy in such an esteem, why don't you accept their other opinions today? They are rather Conservative [theatlantic.com] for one thing — do you share that too, or are you only going to quote the few cherry-picked amon
1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not I, said the fly. (Score:1)
I will NEVER EVER, EVER, nomatter how necessary or ubiquitous or convenient, use Facebook for ANY PURPOSE, as a result of their shenanigans.
Less, let's let facebook lead the way... (Score:2)
Just Don't Call It The Internet (Score:2)
Facebook can connect the world, I have no problem with that. But if they screw with anything they are not allowed to call it "internet".
May I suggest the All Obnoxious Liars system?
Same should apply to Net Neutrality - do anything except route packets and you lose common carrier status and the right to "internet". I offer this one-sentence regulation to the FCC for free.
members only (Score:2)
As long as Fecebook blocks my access to their content, I doubt they really want to let more of the world on the internet. They want more in their proprietary corner of the internet. Others (non info-sharing, non-members ...) are not welcome.
It is necessarily the case. (Score:1)