Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet Communications Networking Your Rights Online

Mark Zuckerberg Issues Call For Universal Internet Access 142

An anonymous reader writes: During the 70th annual U.N. General Assembly session, Zuckerberg discussed the "importance of connectivity in achieving the U.N.'s sustainable development goals. Connecting the world is one of the fundamental challenges of our generation. More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online." Zuckerberg said. Reuters reports: "The connectivity campaign calls on governments, businesses and innovators to bring the Internet to the some 4 billion people who now do not have access, organizers said. Signing on to the connectivity campaign were U2 star Bono, co-founder of One, a group that fights extreme poverty; actress Charlize Theron, founder of Africa Outreach Project; philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates; British entrepreneur Richard Branson; Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington; Colombian singer Shakira, actor and activist George Takei and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg Issues Call For Universal Internet Access

Comments Filter:
  • So who is going to pay for internet connection on Pluto and Charon
    or even Neptune
    (jokes about the next planet in the solar system will follow)

    • by ASDFnz ( 472824 )

      Don't be silly.

      As we all know universal means the USA.

    • You're misinterpreting Zuckerberg's use of "universal". When taken in context, what Mr Zuckerberg meant by "universal" is "anyone who advertising companies would pay me money for information about".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:13AM (#50606879)

    I guess he cant make any money of those things....

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd prefer universal birth control myself... look at Africa, it was given massive amounts of assistance from the mid 1980's onwards and all that happened is a doubling of the population from 550M to 1.1Bn with arguably even more suffering.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        You're probably going to get modded down, but you're absolutely right.

        However, it isn't just Africa that needs to be focused on.

        Just look at the disaster that Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghanis are causing in Europe at the moment.

        There should not be any children among this group.

        Given that Afghanistan and Iraq have been under war or war-like conditions for over a decade now, and Syria for at least half a decade, there is no reason for anyone in those regions to have reproduced over the last 5 to 10 years.

        A warzo

      • I'd prefer universal birth control myself.

        If you want to start World War 3, go right ahead and try starting a world-wide campaign to control people's reproduction. It's literally at the top of the list of things that will piss people off to the point of violence. On a world-wide scale most people are part of one religion or another and those religions almost universally preach that birth control is bad and wrong and you're sinner if you use it because it's the Will of God (whichever flavor) for the faithful to be fruitful and multiply. Do we need t

        • I'd prefer universal birth control myself.

          If you want to start World War 3, go right ahead and try starting a world-wide campaign to control people's reproduction.

          It's one of those odd things - uncontrolled population will just as likely bring about World War 3.

          • Wrong, the couples having more than 2.1 children each aren't the ones who own the nukes. Those with declining population are the power and money grubbing scum who would start WW III

          • I'm responding to you, but there is also an AC who has a similar, if more verbose, response to my comment, which I will cite here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

            Now, then.. I agree wholeheartedly with you, and with the AC linked above. Either way, we, as a race of neo-sentients, lose. The only way out of this trap is if we, as a race, evolve past the point where our reproductive instincts aren't in control of our cognition. I wish I could say I see that on the near horizon, but I don't; it may take tho
            • I'm responding to you, but there is also an AC who has a similar, if more verbose, response to my comment, which I will cite here:

              Another thing that is very odd about humanities survival. Our intelligence, mixed with our aggressiveness, may end up being our downfall.

              A big smart brain that can invent things is not necessarily agood adaptation whne the inventions may allow us to gleefully push the self destruct button (read those among us who have a belief in end of the world prophecies, and want it to happen as soon as possible.

              Pure conjecture here, but the stupid among us who want to reproduce like bunnies just might be better a

              • The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make WsMD, probably aren't smart enough to develop efficient enough farming techniques to produce enough food to feed the teeming masses of population that they're creating, since they can't control their urge to reproduce, vis-a-vis Idiocracy, where they (comically, but it got the point across) completely sabotaged themselves by watering farmland with salt-laden energy drink instead of plain water. The end result mig
                • The only problem I see with what you're saying, is that people who are not smart enough to make

                  Well that's the part of idiocracy where it gets ridiculous. It's not a genius or idiot choice. There's a whoe range in between. But there are plenty of people who cannot fathom science at all, but can grow crops. They might notever be able to figure out how to build an H-Bomb or design an airplane, but they know how to screw, and reproduce, and that's all nature needs.

                  • Well, my point was that in a future where human population has gone so completely out of control that there's not enough food to go around, if there aren't people around smart enough to develop new techniques or technology to meet the growing need, there will be a crisis, and historically speaking isn't that one of the conditions that triggers war? Can't feed your own people, so go kill your neighbors and take theirs? Then someone else sees the writing on the wall and does it to you. And so on.
    • If you have global communications then your remote 3rd world village can have someone take a correspondence course to become a nurses aid or midwife. You can learn ways to increase crop yields, make your house safer, prevent disease, and get access to family planning info.
    • Of course not. If Zuckerberg had started a company like Blue Apron, Toll Brothers, or Blue Cross I am sure he would be asking for universal food, shelter, or healthcare.
      Unfortunately, Facebook's profits are tied to the number of subscribers---and they all need access to the internet.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      Pretty much. Headline should be:

      "Man who makes all his money selling online advertising wants more people to see his ads."

    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      Hell start with water than someone hasn't shat in would be better.
    • Just consider this: Facebook's popularity is waning among the latest generations of teenagers.

      See e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] and http://www.zdnet.com/article/y... [zdnet.com]

      People are (at last) getting tired of facebook. That means: less growth, a user-base that isn't rejuvenating at the same rate as it could, and the spectre of *gasp* declining numbers of acebook users.

      Bad news for a company that just supplies a fashionable fad (as opposed to something that people actually need) and which derives r

  • by arfonrg ( 81735 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:23AM (#50606905)

    Then why doesn't Mr Billionaire pay for it?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. Those listed could easily create the infrastructure, especially as there are massive tax breaks given for such projects. The reality is, these are all mouth-pieces that want more eyeballs to sell more of their crap too. If they were really bothered, they'd start with education and health today, not just more shit to create more consumers.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You don't get rich by writing a lot of cheques.

    • Simple - because the governments won't allow it. Those people that do not have internet are those that are willing to live under economically and socially repressive regimes. If they were left alone they would wire themselves up in a heartbeat (and feed and clothe themselves).

      To kickstart this we need a constellation of low earth orbit networking satellites, together with an airdrop of a billion tablets. Now that would undermine some regimes!

      Note that I use the word "internet" in its strictest sense. No d

  • by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ofni.hsifcitsalp)> on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:27AM (#50606917) Homepage

    ...let them eat cake?

  • "Man with Internet company want more people to have Internet access"

    Yes, I'm being snarky and haven't actually RTFAs.

  • by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:31AM (#50606937) Homepage
    In poor and developing countries the energy production is the priority. Even before food, clean water, etc. Once you have affordable energy, you can efficiently grow food, clean water or at least produce something you can sell to buy food and water. How will you connect to the internet without energy? How will you run a computer, tablet or cellphone on which you can connect to the internet without energy? How do you plan to connect the remote tribes in Papua New Guinea?
  • by trout007 ( 975317 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:34AM (#50606963)

    All you need is to have a culture that respects people's private property. Then let's the capital stock naturally grow and people become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple but human greed of wanting to take from others by force has led to so many cultures inability to get past a subsistence level economy.

    • All you need is to have a culture that respects people's private property. Then let's the capital stock naturally grow and people become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple but human greed of wanting to take from others by force has led to so many cultures inability to get past a subsistence level economy.

      All you need is to have a culture that respects people's needs. That means people help one another and share resources, and people naturally become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple, but human greed of wanting to have more than your neighbor has led so many cultures to get past a navel-gazing existence.

      • You can't increase productivity without capital

        • But there are squealing babies in the ghettos to feed? How can you justify building the machinery to make food for them, when what's just needed is to dump today's food on them, which was made... somewhere else... ?

          • Those babies aren't squealing because there's no food available, they're squealing because their shit for brains parents won't get it, preferring to satisfy their or immediate wants first.

            During an early hard period of my life I utilized food stamps. They are easy to get and actually a little difficult to get them to turn off. BUT, you have to get off your ass to do it.

            In other words, your argument is moot. Especially as the two activities are not at all mutually exclusive and the first will faci
      • All you need is to have a culture that respects people's needs. That means people help one another and share resources, and people naturally become more productive and wealthier. It's so simple, but human greed of wanting to have more than your neighbor has led so many cultures to get past a navel-gazing existence.

        You are correct of course, up until some authority arises that forces you to help others against your will. Usually under the guise of rights and freedom. Then it is back to square one.

  • Many issues here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:41AM (#50606991)

    I used to be a "internet-optimist" also believing universal internet access is a good thing, and maybe it is in the longer run.

    But right now, the web is badly broken. Most of these new users Mr. Zuckerberg wants to get online have no clue about the dangers, both cultural and technical. There are efforts by various foundations (eg: Mozilla [mozilla.org]) to educate new users, but they are hilariously mismatched to the big internet giants who want to siphon of people's privacy for $$$. On top of that you have the Snowden revelations

    I work with many rural communities in India, and often the question of providing internet access comes up. Unlike before, where I would say an unqualified yes, I do not support providing internet unless there is a deep discussion held with the stakeholders. What is (pleasantly) surprising though is that usually the elders in a Village are quite concerned and want to discuss these issues.

    Does Mr. Zuckerberg have it in him to have those discussions?

    • That's basically why he wants them. What good would privacy conscious people do to Facebook?

    • I'd say that most of the current users have no clue about the dangers.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      But right now, the web is badly broken. Most of these new users Mr. Zuckerberg wants to get online have no clue about the dangers, both cultural and technical. There are efforts by various foundations (eg: Mozilla) to educate new users, but they are hilariously mismatched to the big internet giants who want to siphon of people's privacy for $$$. On top of that you have the Snowden revelations

      I work with many rural communities in India, and often the question of providing internet access comes up. Unlike before, where I would say an unqualified yes, I do not support providing internet unless there is a deep discussion held with the stakeholders. What is (pleasantly) surprising though is that usually the elders in a Village are quite concerned and want to discuss these issues.

      As much as the technology community and a lot of political voices (all over the spectrum) are supportive of the disruptive political nature of the Internet, in the West we mostly do disruptive change with only a token level of on-the-ground chaos and violence. I think we greatly discount the ability to process disruptive change in countries with longstanding traditional cultures and marginally functional political processes. Population growth alone has pushed a lot of people into African cities with a lot

  • No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:54AM (#50607047)

    Pay for it, bitch!

    Nobody keeps you from giving everyone free internet. But it's the usual "socialize cost, privatize revenue", isn't it?

  • by vikingpower ( 768921 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @09:07AM (#50607105) Homepage Journal
    Bono. C. Theron. Shakira. Branson.
  • the hell you say (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steak ( 145650 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @09:08AM (#50607115) Homepage Journal

    the guy who makes money from people giving his website all their personal information, wants everyone to have internet access? color me surprised.

  • Self-serving? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @09:16AM (#50607145)

    "More than 4 billion people don't have a voice online."

    He really means "More than 4 billion people don't have access to Facebook, its tracking icons, and its ads." And he wants the gov't to pay for it.

  • ... and I need more people to use Facebook so my advertisers give me more money to ensure my stock doesn't go down.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...on basic human needs such as clean water, a sustainable food production, a better and cleaner environment, and equal rights for all, and also industrialisation that doesn't end up using the poorer people of the world as de-facto slave labor, as they do on spreading the internet to harvest people's private information, then the world would be a better place.

    Also, the UN is cultivating its own irrelevance just by listening to this bullcrap.

  • All these celebrities have their Public Relations advisers who tell them which are the politically correct causes of the moment. Diseases, for instance, should draw sympathy but not too much repulsion; thus you will not see oozing ebola corpses or other rotting flesh in their promotional advertisements. Yes, a hungry child or crutch-using victim of Glaubner's disease can make an interesting poster ad. Fashions come and go among charitable promoters and unfortunately few currently support malaria and other major killers because other causes make more headlines.

    Celebrities have to strike a delicate balance between playing toward your sympathy, making them look heroic, and avoiding the impression of pandering and making them look arrogant. It's safe for them to promote puppies, breast cancer and internet-for-all.

  • Give a man an Internet, he'll watch porn all day and forget to eat. Teach a man to Internet, and he'll start setting up porn sites with AdSense and eat for a lifetime.
  • food would be better, but if you advertise it well they'll be convinced that internet is more important.
  • Zuckerberg: "All your face belong to us"

If you push the "extra ice" button on the soft drink vending machine, you won't get any ice. If you push the "no ice" button, you'll get ice, but no cup.

Working...