Zuckerberg Defends 'Free Basics' App With Comparison To Hospitals, Education (indiatimes.com) 152
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has been under heavy criticism for distributing its "Free Basics" app in areas of the world that have less-developed communications infrastructure. The app essentially provides free access to a limited selection of internet sites. Free Basics was recently banned in India over net neutrality concerns. Mark Zuckerberg has now published a response in the Times of India.
He says, "We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good. We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives. We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school. And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights. That's why everyone also deserves access to free basic internet services."
Facebook and Internet.org are also fighting the bad publicity elsewhere online, and even in local newspapers. "In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it's less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it."
He says, "We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good. We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives. We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school. And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights. That's why everyone also deserves access to free basic internet services."
Facebook and Internet.org are also fighting the bad publicity elsewhere online, and even in local newspapers. "In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it's less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it."
Dishonest comparing it to a library (Score:5, Insightful)
"He says, "We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.
The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.
And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.
In contrast the restrictions with his internet access are entirely arbitrary and self serving. There is no valid comparison to be made.
Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna Bet???
im sure most will actually follow both the letter and spirit of the existing law but
What they can "get away with" is the standard practice
Re: (Score:1)
Not with libraries. You're talking about the people who, when they started getting requests for book borrowing records by law enforcement, stopped keeping records of what books someone had borrowed, and started only recording who currently has a book. They also routinely tell cops to fuck off until they have a warrant.
They're not just another bunch of sleazeballs trying to make money by "disrupting" an industry and selling off your information to advertisers. Libraries don't give a flying fuck about profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna Bet???
Sure do!
In the library system I work for, which serves roughly 240k patrons, we keep almost no information about a patron's activity, so that we can't hand it over. Their checkout history only keeps information on the last item they borrowed, and item records only keep anonymous information, i.e. how many times it has been checked out.
We also offer computer usage. We do not record any information regarding what websites patrons go to, and once a session is ended, the computer is reset to a previous save st
Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.
And they're not in the business of selling anything. You can't go to a library and ask for a LIBRARY PREMIUM membership, that includes access to the entire collection.
There's no such thing as library non-members or BASIC members having access to browser only a portion of the works available.
Restrictions only exist in special libraries, such as those of research institutions or research archives that don't allow non-approved members any access at all.
And on special works unique to the library itself, so called restricted collections that contain items restricted to either protect confidential or potentially injurious information, or ensure research access, or prevent damage or theft of high-value materials.
Re: (Score:3)
Public libraries too are generally run by people with a professional and personal dedication to providing the widest possible selection of information and viewpoints possible within their budgets, not the narrowest.
sPh
Re:Dishonest comparing it to a library (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There certainly are people who enjoy an utterly sincere fundamental misunderstanding; but there are also people who know exactly what the current objective is; and simply want to radically alter it.
FB not a charity. Economics apply to both (Score:2, Flamebait)
Obviously Facebook isn't being entirely altruistic here, they are providing access to Wikipedia, local news, weather, Google search, health information etc. and FACEBOOK.
Having said that, you're right the reason a library doesn't have every book ever published is primarily an economic constraint - it doesn't make sense to pay to buy and house everything ever published.
Exactly the same constraint applies to Facebook or a mobile carrier paying for internet access - it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for
Re:FB not a charity. Economics apply to both (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly the same constraint applies to Facebook or a mobile carrier paying for internet access - it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com.
See... this is a fallacy. The issue here isn't that facebook isn't paying to stream videos... porn or otherwise. If they had a 'no video' policy, nobody would blink.
If they don't want to subsidize streaming porn videos that's fine; but its a strawman -- that's not even the issue.
The issue is that it blocks access to:
mathoverflow.net, linux.org, project gutenberg, ietf.org, slashdot.org, cancerforums.net, woodworkingtalk.com, and literally a million other sources of news, information, ideas, support, and so
Re: (Score:2)
This is in part a strawman and in part false. Yes, Facebook has costs, but its decisions will be informed by its desire for profit, not a remit for public service. Just like any action of a public servant, decisions on book purchases can be challenged by civilians. There is no such accountability in Faceb
Re: (Score:3)
this should be entertaining (Score:2)
> > it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com.
> This is in part a strawman and in part false.
Okay explain to me why Facebook should pay for your porn streaming. Go ahead, and listening.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that Facebook should pay for this. What I did say that Facebook's justification for providing a walled garden is bogus. The long game from Facebook is not beneficial for people.
Re: (Score:2)
it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com. It does make sense that someone would offer to pay for your "free" access to Wikipedia, but not offer to pay for your Hulu and Girls Gone Wild surfing.
Why does it make sense? Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth? Perhaps Hulu will be the next sponsor?
What about accessing a competing social netwo
Open-minded, not lacking-mind. AOL, MSN & Prod (Score:2)
> Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth?
Yes. Wikipedia it's more useful to struggling people in a third world country than Hulu is. It's been said "be open minded, but not so open that your brains fall out".
> if content providers are allowed to partner with ISPs ... then the open and free internet died that day --- from then on, only billion $$$ megacorporations could become a sponsor and have their
Re: (Score:2)
Not a terrible guess, but we've actually already been there and done that. In the early years, ISPs actually did only carry content from partner companies.
However, things were a bit different way back then.... these were really pre-ISP information services and BBSes, not ISPs.... they were a precursor to the consumer internet, and internet was seen as "the next big thing". The computer-using community was much smaller back then: mostly technology enthusiasts greatly interested in the next big thing: V
wtf are you talking about government? (Score:2)
Is there some government subsidy here, or are you completely making shit up? From what I've seen, Facebook and the carriers are the ones subsidizing consumers' access.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Look, I hate FB and Zuck as much as the next Slashdotter, but in this case, the GP has it absolutely spot-on.
Facebook has offered to make a number of services available. Yes, they will take as much as they can get from the government to help pay for providing this service. And yes, the local governments can say "no thanks, we'd rather have the next Tsunami surprise us, if we can't have porn". It really does come down to that, no strawman involved: Bandwidth costs money.
When you
Re: (Score:2)
When you have your hand out, do you spit at the guy who gives you five dollars instead of ten?
Maybe he's in D.C. There are some seriously aggressive panhandlers in that town.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe he's in D.C. There are some seriously aggressive panhandlers in that town
That's not a very respectful way to speak about your elected officials.
A picture is worth 1000 words, video a million (Score:2)
In terms of bandwidth, a picture really is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth a million. In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.
It does have costs. Fiber lines don't build themselves and upgrade themselves every few years. Cisco routers don't magically appear. Just as importantly for the mobile providers, the backbone providers don't give them free bandwidth. The backbones charge.
So $1 can deliver X number of videos, or X million number of wik
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.
You forget that there are Wikipedia pages with pictures and videos on the page.
Facebook's video service is also extremely popular on Facebook; people consume video content on all websites. On some websites, there is more video available ---- presumably, some people like video content and flock to sites that have a larger selection.
But given no choice, they will watch Video on FB.
If the argument is the video me
Not $10 internet light, free educational material (Score:2)
> to provide a "light" srvice block multimedia
If they were selling a light-use internet service, sure. They are not. They are giving, at no charge, access to educational materials (and their own site, of course). They are fully within their rights to decide what they want to pay for, to give away.
It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of self-entitled little spoiled brats Slashdot readers are, as they bitch about people giving things away.
Re: (Score:2)
If only that were true [csmonitor.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Context please. It "ended up on 'a' banned book list?
WHAT banned book list? And who uses that list?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the one the local community leaders set up to "protect our children", of course!
Not my local community. Or perhaps even if it was some local community leaders the actual libraries aren't paying it any attention.
So context please. Is this some national banned books list, statewide? Some podunk community public library? Banned by some school district? Or just one K-6 school?
Re: (Score:3)
Libraries are, ultimately, beholden to the desires of their funding organizations; but 'librarian' is one of those funny jobs, like 'teacher', 'doctor', and 'flight crew where they are supposed to serve "the customer"; but sometimes serving the customer means telling them to GTFO and let us do our job.
A given library can't drift too far from the objectives it was set up to fill(a K-12 collection is go
Re: (Score:3)
And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.
Even corporate sponsored results can be better than providing nothing at all.
I'm always reminded of my grandpa's stories from the war. There was no choice, there was oppression. People were not free to do what they want, obtain reading materials they want, and even learn what they want. Heck jobs in general were bad. So what did he do? Joined the Hitler Youth. Once he did their life was in his control and 70 years later he proclaimed it as the best decision he ever made, and under the oppression of someone
Re: (Score:2)
> So what did he do? Joined the Hitler Youth. Once he did their life was in his control and 70 years later he proclaimed it as the best decision he ever made,
LOL! So, your *PRO-ZUCKERBERG* statement is that using Facebook services is like joining the Hitler Youth?
Marketing genius!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is. Both are horrible when it comes to the freedom of the general public. Yet both provide at least something that would otherwise not be there.
By the way I'm not Pro-Zuckerberg. His comparisons to libraries is as absurd as the GP pointed out.
I am however pro-Free-Basics even if it has only corporate tie-ins.
He's on to something (Score:2)
all those that met its low-bandwidth technical guidelines would gain approval.
Specifically, mobile websites should work in the absence of:
JavaScript
SVG images and WOFF font types
iframes
Video and large images
Flash and Java applets
Yes, yes, and yes. When I load a page, I don't want 90% of the data to consist of a pile of scripts that exists mostly to violate my privacy, that stupid new style of in-window "pop-up" frame, or generally almost every one of the "modern advances" in website design. Of course, I wouldn't trust FB to decide which content to allow or not, but it sure would be nice for websites to implement these upgrades.
Re: (Score:3)
The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.
And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.
This! Zuckerberg's comparison is at best, naive. More likely, it is deliberately disingenuous, attempting to obscure the glaring truth that Facebook aims to make money off of the thing. If you want to make a buck, that's fine. Just don't try to sell it with transparent bullshit like this, Mark.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, more sophisticated libraries SHARE books. Certainly with the college level libraries Inter Library Loans are very common. You quite literally CAN have ANY book you want.
Zuckerburg is quite obviously talking self-serving bullshit. It doesn't matter if he's ever been in a real library or not. He will simply act like it because it suits his agenda.
Trying to compare his little walled garden to a hospital just makes him look like a giant robber baron jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except hospitals are paid for by taxpayers, so the "free healthcare" really isn't. (Though single payer healthcare has many benefits).
You have to remember that "Free basics' is just that - completely free (beer) access to the walled garden. You don't pay a single cent for data in the walled garden. Sure you;re limited to what you can do, buy someone else is paying for it, and they get to say
Re: (Score:1)
Some years back, I had an OC12 in my connection closet that fed my server room. I'd stumbled across an inbound call router on eBay. In the interest of learning new things, we had the inbound call router connected and firewalled from the local network. If you knew the number and had a user/password (we built it all with older equipment) then you could call in and have free dial-up internet access. I don't actually have any idea how many people used it because it was the techs that took care of it all and han
Re: (Score:2)
"everyone...deserves" (Score:3)
Fuck Fuckerberg (Score:1)
Well of course he's mad. This was the bottom floor to begin tracking and monetizing new people. Facebook, and subsequently its stock price, can't grow much larger without fresh product to sell.
When you control internet you control information (Score:3)
When you control the internet you control information.
Sure, free basics (Score:3)
Just do something that is company-independent. For example provide free internet for everyone at 56k speed. Or provide web-only (not internet).
But preference of one companies' service (Wikipedia, I am also looking at you) is destroying equal opportunity for the next Google/Wikipedia/Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because at that point he becomes a telecom provider, and has to follow rules and regulations of telecom companies, which include net neutrality, i.e. not preferring your & your buddies' companies.
He's arguing against himself (Score:1)
So if free internet is a basic right... then why not make it public and transparent? Why should they have to go through Facebook and all it's tracking and advertisements to get it?
Bad comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
We have collections of free basic books. They're called libraries. They don't contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.
What Zuckerberg apparently fails to realize is that libraries don't see their users as a product, and generally don't have a vested interest in keeping their users away from the local bookstore and other non-library sanctioned locations. Because users are facebooks product, it creates a massive conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
What Zuckerberg apparently fails to realize is that libraries don't see their users as a product, and generally don't have a vested interest in keeping their users away from the local bookstore and other non-library sanctioned locations.
"...fails to realize..."? No, he's just failing to acknowledge such differences, because they would be detrimental to Facebook's business model if too many people thought too much about what he's really doing.
Next thing you'll be claiming that a used-car salesman doesn't actually " realize" that he's making a major profit off some clunker if you buy it at his price, or that the diet pill guy doesn't "realize" that the pills don't really work, or that the TV evangelist doesn't "realize" that by sending hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. dpidcoe is still correct. You pointing out that politicians also see us as a product changes nothing.
Free what? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have free basic healthcare.
Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and certainly not society as a whole
When you have otherwise able people removed from the economic circuit and sitting on welfare due to the inability to get treatment for the basically treatable then you are affecting society as a whole. Just because it only affects *you* by one very small and minuscule portion doesn't change this.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".
So yes, we do have 'free basic healthcare' by your own words.
How do you think 'free health care' is paid for in other countries? Do you think those people don't get paid or do you think they just pay it in taxes ... kind of like you pay it in taxes (insurance) in the US. So yes, we pay for our Free Basic Healthcare, which is EXACTLY what those ER visits are.
Do you understand anything at all about how the world works? You seem to think other countries give 'free and universal' health care ... which you se
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I understand all your points. But in the US hospitals are required to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay - which is a good thing - but some people w/o access to primary care often use the ER for all kinds of medical needs and unpaid bills get passed along as higher fees to those that can pay and/or have insurance (not paid by taxes, which would be spread across the entire population).
I don't have any sense of entitlement, but would like those that can pay and/or afford insurance
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, in the US? Since when? Unless you mean being poor/uninsured and having hospital ERs pass the cost along to others. Perhaps rich white dudes, like Zuckerberg, and I have different definitions of the word "free".
So yes, we do have 'free basic healthcare' by your own words.
Only if you consider the ER preventing you from dying at that particular moment to be "health care".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really. This racist and sexist comment is (Score:3, Insightful). Why is race and sex even mentioned here?
Actually, I'm also white, male and financially independent. I used the phrase "rich, white dude" to imply "out of touch with the reality of the masses" - as it seems to generally apply. Sorry for any confusion, though the chip on your shoulder seems a little too big...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But nevermind the facts. They can't divide people using mere facts. They want the groups to hate each other, so they can exercise power by leading one group against the other. Facts lack the needed drama to encourage otherwise satisfied and peaceful people to want to fight their neighbors.
So shut up about how poor people get Medicaid for free. The poor don't get perfectly equal treatment (in exchange for the nothing that they offer in return). That's what matters. That's why one group should hate the o
Re: (Score:2)
> Uh, in the US? Since when?
Since the 60s actually.
The funny thing about liberal bleeding hearts is that they all seem to be totally clueless and have no actual real experience with being poor. They just read nonsense written by some other clueless liberal crusader and take all of their propaganda at face value.
Clueless idiots in general abuse Emergency Rooms. This includes employed middle class people that get out of the transaction with nothing more than a $100 copay. This all stems from the delusion t
Easy way to convince them (Score:5, Insightful)
If his motivations are entirely philanthropic in nature, there is an easy solution to their concerns:
Remove Facebook from the free list, and let the government decide what qualifies for the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, I suspect that 'the web' as designed for people with terrible phones and very, very, limited bandwidth is going to be a specialized subset; you just can't get away with streaming-video-ads and multiple megabytes of random 3rd party embeds under those conditions; but it can be a specialized
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly save a lot of effort, and I doubt anyone would object to that.
This is more like giving out free candy if you get into the car than working a soup kitchen.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook vs the Indian government on the topic of censorship?
In any other scenario I would be right there with you but sorry mate but I'm going to side with Facebook on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Bait and switch from Zuckerberg (Score:1)
First of all I have to deal with this beauty: "Public hospitals don't offer every treatment, but they still save lives." Maybe that's true in the USA where Zuckerberg is from, but it's definitely not true in a lot of other countries (even in some poorer ones!). I offer this as just one example of how Zuckerberg is casually trying to dodge the criticisms rather than confront them head-on. He offers slightly off-topic truisms, and then steps back to see if anyone noticed that the topic of conversation has m
Re: (Score:2)
things college graduates know (Score:2)
Messiah Complex? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think at this point dipshit #Solutionist Millennials seem like they have developed some form of a messiah complex, in which they believe they have a moral or divine responsibility to be the agent in delivering good to the planet.
FTFY.
Critics should provide their own services (Score:2)
There is no doubt that informational and education resources included with free basics are beneficial and even health/life saving to someone unable to afford a pay service. Net neutrality/anticompetitive concerns are also valid, but they are a 1st world problem. We have to solve them in due time, but not the expense of folks getting connected to their families and the world by someone who is willing to pay for it now.
Ad supported Internet has its own share of problems, including journalistic integrity. But
Re: (Score:2)
What they are offering is not internet access, it is a place in his walled garden (or maybe fenced pasture is better). Wikipedia and such are the sugar that he was hoping would help them swallow the bitter facebook medicine.
There are a lot of secondary effects to allowing something like this, from crushing any local competition with facebook before it begins, to letting them choose and price what it takes to reach the populace. If he is only going for the betterment of everyone involved, he can straight u
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, Mark Zuckerberg does intend to donate most of his personal money. As far as Facebook's money and labor of its employees, there obviously has to be something for the company to make a massive investment worthwhile. This does not make access to Wikipedia any less valuable to someone who would otherwise remain uneducated and access to Facebook itself is a benefit to someone who would otherwise not get to see family photos. Local competition will have much more luck once some folks teach
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But no sane person would give up access to all the services until something perfect is created.
"It's not perfect, so let's not do it at all" is the most common Slashdot argument against anything.
Try to understand: Free, ad-supported, limited-Internet service is bad. Let them eat cake.
and those examples use standard infrastructures (Score:2)
But do not try to take advantage of persons in certain socio economic situations pretending to be their saviour.
Independent board (Score:4, Insightful)
Aligning a service like tihs with the goals and agenda of any private organization is dangerous indeed. Then it is no longer altruistic and I fail to see how it can ever be good for the people.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? (Score:2)
> We have free basic healthcare
Communist. We don't want things like health and security here in the U.S..
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. The U.S. all about growth and opportunity. It's not some stale old country that's homogeneous and stable. It's not a place that pants for newcomers (or anyone else with ambition).
What alternatives are being offered? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let them eat cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Half a loaf (Score:1)
One problem with the discussion that is occurring online is that _we_ all have Internet access. 80%+ of Indians don't. Ask them whether imperfect Internet access is better than none. The answers you get will likely be quite different...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gateway service... (Score:2)
"In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it's less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it."
So.... it's like pot (if you believe government claims about it being a gateway drug)
Could Zuckerberg be any more clueless? (Score:2)
My question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Off Mark Zuckerberg (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the analogy is at least somewhat apt; having a public profile is like wearing an assless gown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And .... it's not free, either. They will bill you for it. I've racked up some impressive ER/hospital bills in my day.
There might be a free clinic near you if you live near a big city but saying healthcare is free in America is like saying food is free because some charities run soup kitchens.
Another point of contention I have with Zuckerbergs' statement is that public scools and libraries also are not free. They are paid for with taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Free basic healthcare is nothing that ANY working person can't afford. If you're whining about free professional services for anyone except welfare recipients, you really have less than no clue.
You're simply a manifestation of consumerism where paying for overpriced coffee is fine but paying a doctor is some great tragedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did not describe free.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm... The library in the village, when I'm home - at least, is not paid for by any taxes - they even pay taxes (albeit at a locked in rate from something like 1860 so not a whole lot in taxes). (I think their tax bill was like $6 per year and they're actually unable to increase their size because of it - or were, more on that in a minute.) See, a long time ago, someone set up a trust and a collection of books to get things started. The library was staffed with volunteers and a single poorly paid librarian.