Facebook Is Talking To the White House About Giving You 'Free' Internet (washingtonpost.com) 164
Facebook is in talks with the government and wireless carriers to bring its 'Free Basics' internet service to the United States, reports Washington Post, citing sources. If everything goes as planned for Facebook, it would target "low-income and rural Americans who cannot afford reliable, high-speed internet at home or on smartphones," (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) the paper adds. From the report: Exactly what specific services would be offered in the U.S. app has not been determined. But the idea to bring Free Basics to the United States is likely to rekindle a long-running debate about the future of the Internet. On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool in connecting underserved populations to the Internet, in some cases for the first time. On the other side are those who argue that exempting services from data caps creates a multitiered playing field that favors businesses with the expertise and budgets to participate in such programs. The fight over this tactic, known as "zero-rating," has largely taken place overseas where local start-ups are mixing with globally established firms in still-nascent Internet economies. But a launch of Free Basics would bring the discussion to U.S. shores in a major way.India banned Free Basics program in the country earlier this year, stating that Facebook's initiative violates net neutrality. The government told Facebook to open Free Basics so that underserved Indians could access any website that would like -- as opposed to select websites handpicked by Facebook. The government added that if it is not feasible for Facebook to offer unlimited access to every website, it could look into introducing limited monthly data plans (like 500MB or 1GB for users). India was not open to the idea of Facebook offering users access to select websites.
Let me guess (Score:3)
Required Facebook login
It's like if McDonalds reached out to the government to start a "free lunch" program...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well technically it is free virtual foods stamps to buy free virtual food and specific virtual restaurants. Basically those on the bottom of the capitalist pile, those least able to compete and by that virtue deserving of being contemptuously exploited, those who can not afford internet services, can be plugged in and monitored 24/7 and manipulated and controlled at will by the corporations that would be using deep psychological profiling and targeted messaging to own and control them. Now what could go wro
What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch? (Score:3)
Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people? As long as no-one was coerced to accept these lunches, I'd say this would be a wonderful development.
It may be that these free lunches would be unhealthy, or that they would cause children to get used to eating a lot of McDonald's food. But the people who would be offered these lunches could decide for themselves whether they want the food. There are other ways of getting food too.
The situation here is the same: Fac
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald’s has been repeatedly accused of failing to provide healthy food to employees. In accordance with Brazilian law, employers have to provide a “healthy and varied” lunch for their workers. This is commonly accomplished through distribution of meal tickets that can be redeemed at restaurants and grocery stores, giving employees the optionof bringing their own lunch or eating out. Last year a state labor court in Pernambuco ordered the company to pay $15 million in damages to employe
Re: (Score:1)
In accordance with Brazilian law, employers have to provide a “healthy and varied” lunch for their workers.
That seems like an astoundingly stupid law. Why should my employer be responsible for choosing what I eat for lunch?
This is commonly accomplished through distribution of meal tickets
Why not just just pay them a little more instead? That will lower administrative costs for employers, while giving employees the freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Maybe they would prefer, say, medicine for their child, or gas for their car, rather than extra food.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the model of a human as a perfectly rational perfectly informed individual is simplistic to the point that it's completely useless in considering most transactions - and one obvious example would be where young people are offered addictive food.
In general, the philosophical justification for libertarian trade is based on incorrect premises.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people?
And what's wrong with T-Mobile offering zero-rated services to some people?
More seriously, if McDonalds did such a thing, then it would remove pressure to create a system to provide free lunches to people who really need them that WASN'T McDonalds, so other providers would see less reason to do it. Eventually you'll wind up with McDonalds as the only choice for a free lunch.
But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay)
No, it doesn't prevent them from making offers, but it does remove customers.
Are we really so much smarter than Facebook's potential customers that we know for sure that they would prefer no service to Facebook's crippled one?
If you read the fine summary, you'll note that this servi
Re: (Score:1)
nice catch
Re: (Score:3)
Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people?
...because it starts out that way, quickly followed by Mickey D's stating "Oh, we can't keep up with the ballooning costs! Help us Uncle Sam!" Of course, no politician wants to be seen as taking free food away from starving children' mouths, so of course a big appropriations bill will be launched, then objectors will be bullied until it gets signed into law.
About a year or two after that, the taxpayers end up covering 150-200% of the initial cost, as Mickey D's sends massively inflated invoices to Washingto
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason this is going to hurt other ISPs.
If McD handed out "free" meals, other restaurants would have to shut down or find a way to lower their own prices, essentially having to do the same shit. In the end, you will be left with either only McD to go to or a load of restaurants that offer exactly the same crappy junk because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.
Re: (Score:2)
...because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.
You do realize that in any major city, there are literally hundreds of restaurants that are much more expensive than McDonald's, and they stay in business because in reality there is a market for quality, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that in any major city, there are literally hundreds of restaurants that are much more expensive than McDonald's,
And how many people who cannot afford better than McD for lunch go to them? But they do go to other places than McD that they can afford -- which they won't do when McD is free.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do go to other places than McD that they can afford -- which they won't do when McD is free.
So your claim is that McD's will get 100% of the "don't care about food quality" market? They might -- but why should anyone care? The claim that there is no substantial market for quality food is obviously false, and there is no reason to think that all other restaurants, even those in the same price bracket, would disappear.
Other restaurants that specialize in crap food might go out of business. BFD.
Re: (Score:2)
So your claim is that McD's will get 100% of the "don't care about food quality" market?
I made no such claim. Please read the words.
They might -- but why should anyone care?
Because when you are accepting responsibility for feeding people who cannot afford to feed themselves, you must also accept responsibility for feeding them properly. You cannot ethically tell someone that you are going to feed them for free and then hand them a bag full of sawdust.
The claim that there is no substantial market for quality food is obviously false,
I made no such claim. Please read all the words.
Other restaurants that specialize in crap food might go out of business. BFD.
Well, your definition of "crap food" may not be the same as everyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you are accepting responsibility for feeding people who cannot afford to feed themselves, you must also accept responsibility for feeding them properly.
False, of course.
Note also that "people who cannot afford to feed themselves" already do not eat at McDonald's.
Re: (Score:2)
False, of course.
So you would see no problem in feeding people in homeless shelters bowls of boiled sawdust? There is no responsibility to feed people properly when you accept the responsibility to feed them?
What other things do you think you can do improperly after you've promised to do them?
Note also that "people who cannot afford to feed themselves" already do not eat at McDonald's.
When McDonalds feeds them for free they do. Do you really not remember that this entire discussion is about McD giving free lunches to people who qualify for free lunches?
Re: (Score:2)
That's 0 / 2 from you mate. (although both for the same reason)
False, of course.
So you would see no problem in feeding people in homeless shelters bowls of boiled sawdust? There is no responsibility to feed people properly when you accept the responsibility to feed them?
What other things do you think you can do improperly after you've promised to do them?
This is all about opportunity cost.
Situation 1 - they can't afford food. They go without food. Eventually they starve.
Situation 2 - they can't afford food. But now they also have boiled sawdust. They go without food. Eventually they starve.
Situation 3 - they can't afford food. Company is mandated to give top quality offering. Company decides not to pursue program. They go without food. Eventually they starve.
Situation 4 - they can't afford food.
Re: (Score:2)
So you would see no problem in feeding people in homeless shelters bowls of boiled sawdust? There is no responsibility to feed people properly when you accept the responsibility to feed them?
What other things do you think you can do improperly after you've promised to do them?
In the context of this discussion, you said that McDonald's is "accepting responsibility to feed people" by offering free lunches.
If you opened a homeless shelter, and tried to feed people sawdust, that would not be morally wrong. It would be stupid, because nobody would eat it, but it wouldn't be wrong. There is no responsibility for you to "feed people properly" (whatever that means) just because you offered to feed them something.
Do you really not remember that this entire discussion is about McD giving free lunches to people who qualify for free lunches?
No, this discussion stemmed from a comment that if McDonald's offered free lunches, other restaurants would have to do the same or shut down; and I pointed out that we already have evidence that people are willing to pay a price premium for quality. Whether or not people who cannot afford to eat at McDonald's today would start eating the free lunches is really not relevant to that discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 0 / 2 from you mate. (although both for the same reason) ... This is all about opportunity cost.
No. It is about ethical behaviour as a human being. The "false, of course" comment was a reply to my statement that when you accept the responsibility to feed someone, you accept the responsibility to do it properly. "Opportunity cost" has nothing to do with it. Once you say "I'll give you free food because you cannot afford to feed yourself", you have a responsibility to provide actual, real, working food. You can't ethically say "I'll feed you..." and then give someone sawdust. If you think that statement
Re: (Score:2)
Ok lets deal with these points now...
Sawdust and ethics:
again stop the reducto ad absurdum. McD is bad food, no argument there. But it is food. It is something humans can live (poorly) on. Sawdust is not. Compare apples with apples.
next - ethics and morals are subjective. Some people thing that those who would refuse to serve homosexuals are unethical but others would think they are very ethical. (and no I don't want to turn this into a what are the "correct" values thread - only to highlight that "correct"
Re: (Score:2)
Ok lets deal with these points now...
Let's. And let's limit this to the points where I've commented.
Sawdust and ethics: again stop the reducto ad absurdum. McD is bad food, no argument there.
Reducto ad absurdum is a valid argument. When someone says that they do not have a responsibility to feed someone properly when they accept the responsibility to feed people voluntarily, then it is sufficient to disprove that claim by showing that there is, indeed, a level of responsibility they assume towards feeding people properly. If they have no responsibility, then sawdust is an acceptable "food". If they have some responsibility, then it
Re: (Score:3)
The point is, right now you will, even in poor neighborhoods, have a few people who will pay for internet, and hence providing the service is a viable business for ISPs. With FB muscling in, this ceases to be the case, so if you're poor, your only chance will be to get Facebooknet, because no other ISP will service your area.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to agree that the McDonald's analogy is not a particularly good one, partly there's an awful lot more competition and choices in the restaurant space than in ISP coverage -- and people are already used to paying a premium for better-quality food.
Re: (Score:3)
But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay), this offering simply provides people more choices which inherently cannot make them worse off.
But sometimes it does harm them. There's goodness in net neutrality. If a lower cost offering exists, which limits the information the people can get, they may not accept the full internet (even if available to them), because it will cost more. As a result the people are unknowingly harmed, because they won't chose to get full access to the plethora of ideas which exist on a net neutral internet.
Re: (Score:1)
If I undestand right the internet.org [or how it's called now] program, it's a very wrong statement
Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the first step to create a monopoly. Why eat in other restaurants or even cook your own food when you get food for free in McDonald's?
Why pay for internet when you get FaceBook and certified websites for free? Not only are the people restricted on the internet since they can only visit what Facebook wants them to visit, but website builders are also forced to get their website certified. But how do you make your website available on FaceBook's free internet? I'm certain it will not be free as in free speech, probably only free as in free beer.
Theoretically it was possible for every individual to start his own radio or television station in the past. But the bandwidth of antenna's was limited so the governments had to hand out certifications. This was not ideal, but was necessary due to technical limitations.
The internet is rather unlimited, everyone can build their own websites, put many radio and television streams online, and there is no restriction as long as you can be found on search engines. This requires a neutral search engine in the first place, and it is already worrisome that private companies with their own agenda control what can and can't be found. But having a company like FaceBook handing out free internet will be a nightmare. Only a handful of selected pages will be available to the users of the 'free' internet. Free in this case doesn't mean free at all, and the users will not even know they are stuck in a gated online world once they get used to it. Compare it to the big blue E equals internet only 15 years ago. People didn't even know there were other browsers. But even the Internet Explorer only websites are far from the evils of FaceBook certified internet gates. It's almost like the dark ages were people didn't move out of their villages and didn't even know there were things like books or cities or irrigation or....
It is a very bad idea. There should not even be a talk in the white house. Just imagine this would become a success.
It only requires like 10-20% of the Internet users to use free FaceBook internet to control future elections. It is like a Chinese firewall, but the other way around. Websites aren't simply blocked but only made available within the walled garden (of Eden with the forbidden tree of knowledge that our Lord Zuckerberg protects, say something wrong and Lord Zuckerberg will throw you out of the garden of Eden together with an 'original sin'). There would be even no ability to use VPN or build your own website behind the firewall.
Just imagine that about 40% uses FaceBook's free internet and Zuckerberg decides to make useful and popular websites only available through free internet and hides it for non free internet.
Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet' (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Memo to Rick Schumann. If I give something away for free I give away what I want. If they want the internet they can pay for it. Until then they're getting 2016 AOL. Remember AOL? The thing that gave people a wealth of access to things that they didn't have before? Yeah, that's what they're getting for free.
Re: (Score:2)
You can take your head out of your ass now.
Re: (Score:2)
Memo to ... ahh fuck it.
You're giving something away in America in direct competition with a cartel with lots of power in government. You talk to the government first.
I think in this case I'll more happily have my head in my ass than yours which is stuck so deep in the sand you can feel the warm glow of the earth's core.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unethical because he wants to give them only the parts of the Internet that he wants them to have -- which includes Facebook, of course. It's a conflict of interest; his so-called 'charity' is tainted by his own special interests.
And given past Facebook conduct, it would be surprising if any right-of-center web sites made it to the list of allowed sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not a gift.
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia? Or that wonky church with all the protesting? Or the Stormfront webpage?
You cannot leave the role of education and exploration to a private interest group.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot leave the role of education and exploration to a private interest group.
You mean a private interest group like the NEA?
What about it??? (Score:2)
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia?
And what would be so bad about that exactly? You just don't like it because it expresses a point of view you despise. But nothing would be stopping someone from freely distributing Liberalpedia.
Some access is better than nothing, and if it's limited enough people will not use it - something as narrow as a "storefront only" wifi would be used by few indeed, even by people that liked the site!
Facebook's approach is a good compromise. It would give people a
Re: (Score:2)
So listening to two different lies is a-ok? If I wanted that, I'd still have a TV and watch Fox and MSNBC news.
Re: (Score:2)
So listening to two different lies is a-ok?
Not ONLY is listening to two different lies OK, it's kind of mandatory if you want Truth (which is somewhere in the middle).
If I wanted that,
And if you DON'T want that, you just don't connect. WOW SO HARD NOT REALLY.
Re:What about it??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia?
And what would be so bad about that exactly? You just don't like it because it expresses a point of view you despise. But nothing would be stopping someone from freely distributing Liberalpedia.
It seems strange you would say this while knowing absolutely nothing at all about me.
You have no idea what my thoughts are on anything, including Rationalwiki (which I assume is what you mean by Liberalpedia).
Furthermore, that you would conflate point of view with the issues of Conservapedia is mildly troubling from a psychological perspective.
Re:Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet' (Score:5, Insightful)
I might not be opposed to this if done right. (Score:5, Interesting)
If free basics was 64kbps to access anything on the web (basically what tmobile, etc.. do when you run out of data) then I might be ok with it.
If free basics was html only and no video/multimedia then this again might be ok.
I'm completely against zero rating but if you did it this way then you are basically giving a low bandwidth "text only" version of the web away for free.
It makes no sense the other way where facebook is exempt but linkedin isn't because it didn't pay the right person.
Now if facebook wants to pay my my cellular provider for my bandwidth usage (and pay the same consumer rate I do) then I would be ok with that too.
It would have to be closely watched though so that you don't end up with a tiered web where the only sites most people visit are the ones that are "free".
Re:I might not be opposed to this if done right. (Score:5, Interesting)
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage and could easily lead to a monopoly situation.
Giving Facebook an economically reinforced status as the gateway to the internet seems like a bad idea to me.
Monopoly at a huge cost with huge reward (Score:2)
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage
Maybe it's a huge advantage (though how many non-care Facebook services have you used and then abandoned?).
But it also is a GIANT expense for Facebook, in terms of hardware and support. In that sense you could say that other competitors would be on equal footing in terms of being able to turn a profit on paid services, they may have somewhat fe
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage and could easily lead to a monopoly situation.
I've seen this in the past with internet kiosks. They have 6-12 "free" sites and the open web costs $1/minute. The kiosks get paid either way, it's just who is footing the bill. This gets more complicated though with players that also provide competing services because they might not let you zero rate your service at any cost because they don't want you to compete with them. That's why if we are going to do zero rating then the cost to the website should be the same rate to all websites and the same rat
Re: (Score:1)
critical tool? (Score:2)
On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool
I'm not seeing facebook as a critical tool...
Re: (Score:2)
So it's critical to the survival of cancer. Something else?
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can save the government money when it is census time. Just force everyone in America to use Facebook and then they can pull the data for them. How selfless of Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook can save the government money when it is census time. Just force everyone in America to use Facebook and then they can pull the data for them. How selfless of Facebook.
Oh, is THAT how they save the government money?
I thought they did that by choosing to pay nothing in Federal taxes for years.
Silly me.
Re: (Score:2)
Sold! Privacy seems to have an incredibly high value right now. I'm just waiting for when I can buy a Ferrari for that price.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me translate that: "Free" meaning "Give Facebook all your personal information and let us monitor everything you do."
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know Facebook sells influence, and being able to tap into a new market allows them the opportunity to sell more influence. I have yet to find a truly charitable cooperation so it a guarded approach makes sense. Kudos to India for seeing through this, allowing an entity influence over your poor is a fools move.
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA (Score:1)
Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious? (Score:1)
Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
One has to wonder if the people against the plan really have their own interests in mind, and want to have free, unrestricted Internet for themselves, rather than paying for it, and so are dragging out these "But it won
Re:Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a question about whether poor people should have free internet access. (there will be a lot of people for and against that for various reasons).
This is against Facebook abusing and manipulating their power to promote specific websites and potentially strangling their rivals using government money to do so.
Everyone should be able to agree that Facebook shouldn't be able to take government funds to strengthen their own product and weaken their rivals in a pseudo-claim that they're doing it for the poor. That's called corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is against Facebook abusing and manipulating their power to promote specific websites and potentially strangling their rivals using government money to do so.
That's just the thing, though, isn't it?
This is about "zero-rating", meaning that there is no government money involved.
I know that it's fashionable to not ready the articles before commenting, but had you read the article, this will be paid for by Facebook, the carriers (as a loss-leader to get people to buy into paid data plans instead), and by the major web sites that would be accessible without code (including, but not limited to, Facebook).
If they were spending tax dollars on it, that'd be one thing, b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and they want the governments to lay down the hardware to support the project. You think that's free too? Or that Facebook is paying for that? Nothing the government does is free.
Even Facebook bringing this up is costing the government (you and I) money in discussing this.
Re: (Score:2)
The hardware is "existing cellular infrastructure and telephone handsets to be provided by the carriers".
Still not seeing the government paying for anything.
I agree that them discussing it at all is time politicians could be better spending doing things like honoring their campaign promises (e.g. closing GITMO), but realistically: if you pay a politician for access, you get access.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
The "I've got mine" attitude works a whole lot more for a limited commodity, not so well as adding another node to a network. Plus, given that this wireless Facebook access wouldn't allow for access to Slashdot, it's not hypocritical to the Slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
The "I've got mine" attitude works a whole lot more for a limited commodity, not so well as adding another node to a network. Plus, given that this wireless Facebook access wouldn't allow for access to Slashdot, it's not hypocritical to the Slashdot crowd.
Actually, it is.
The people who already pay for Internet access are the ones bitching about other people not paying, if they don't care about web sites too poor to help pay for the subsidy to allow access to their sites.
There's no question that it's anticompetitive against poor sites -- but given that the target market aren't seeing any sites right now, them continuing to not see your site because your company is unwilling to help pay for subsidy access really could mean three different things:
1. (the one yo
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't think Internet access is a limited quantity, I invite you to spend a summer in La Verkin, Utah -- Population 4,060, and not worth U.S. West's time to put in high speed network access for anyone.
It sounds like people in La Verkin do have internet access, just perhaps at the speeds you want. My point is that adding everyone in La Verkin doesn't reduce my ability to access the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
You can "dude" and "bro" me all you want.
The point is that Facebook is willing to pay to get people without any access service to the point that they have at least some access .
Bitching about that access not leading to all possible places on the Internet is like bitching about the food bank not guaranteeing that the food they give you is Halal food.
Re: (Score:2)
I would certainly not mind if Zuckerberg wanted to give poor people free internet. Hell, I'd chip in, I think the idea is awesome! I can't stand that sleazebag and I would probably only hand him a glass of water if he was already drowning, but if he actually did that, I would actually say that at least something good came out of the total surveillance tool that Facebook is.
But that is not the case. He is exactly NOT offering free internet to the poor. What his "generous offer" is, is that these people will
Re: (Score:2)
There is not a single altruistic fiber in this move. It's an attempt to corner the market, on the expense of people who already have nothing.
This would be the lucrative market of "advertising things people can't afford to people who have no money to buy them in the first place"?
I'm thinking that the pre-dot.bomb Internet is calling, and they say they want their business model back.
Well yeah (Score:2)
I guess your earnings aren't doing well... (Score:2)
The Cyberpunk RPG starts to make sense (Score:3)
Anyone who ever played any kind of Cyberpunk game has wondered why the hell decks and net access are so damn expensive. I mean, computers and internet are already dirt cheap in our world today, and they'd only get cheaper as time goes by.
The reason gets clearer every day, what makes decks and decker access expensive is that the access is not limited by what you may see and no DRM clogs your deck that limits what software may run...
Fuck That Gift Horse Right In The Mouth (Score:1)
I want nothing from, nor to do with Facebook. Ever.
They can take their thinly veiled and disingenuous charity and stuff it up their rectums.
freaks? (Score:2)
> On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool
I started wondering who these freaks might be, but then I realized its probably mostly employees of car dent repair shops.
I like the the political angle (Score:2)
Get the Obama/Democratic White House behind this idea.
Not only will it enable another freebie giveaway, but left-leaning Zuckerberg will also be supplying an ideologically curated platform of left wing messages to the unwashed masses, ensuring that Democratic ideology remains front and center.
Re: (Score:2)
Get the Obama/Democratic White House behind this idea.
Given the editorializing that Facebook has been accused of on the news feeds, favoring Democratic candidates, one would think both of those would *already* be behind it, since they're already reaping the benefit, and this would be a way to amplify it further.
Just saying...
What's this "App" thing? (Score:2)
Article keeps using the word "app," like this is software from Facebook that you execute and then it .. does something. Would this "app" be a UI to the internet, or does it create a new interface that other software can use, or what?
It sounds like it might be AOL. Is this AOL?
Re: (Score:2)
So no matter the OS, device or location, a locked in consumer never has to exit the Zuckernet.
Facebook “Messenger Day” is the chat app’s new Snapchat Stories clone (Sep 30, 2016)
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09... [techcrunch.com] Facebook launches pared back Android chat app to keep growing its messaging empire (Oct 3, 2016)
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10... [techcrunch.com]
'Free' Internet (Score:2)
Given the limited access provided by this program elsewhere in the world, it needs to be spelled: 'Free' 'Internet'
Democracy? (Score:2)
The same company??? (Score:2)
Free drugs (Score:1)
It's like a drug dealer offering a few free doses to those poor folk who cannot afford to get started on the habit on their own
TANSTAAFL (Score:2)
For those who want context.. (Score:2)
Here's [thewire.in] a rebuttal to a rebuttal by Indian VC Mahesh Murthy when Facebook tried to introduce its Free Basics here last year. This attempt came just after a backlash against local mobile operator Airtel, who wanted to charge extra for using Whatsapp and Viber since they claimed to be losing money on SMS revenue as a result.
Read this piece to see the FUD that FB has been spreading and how it was countered.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Mark Zuckerberg and Washington DC politicians are working on a plan to solve all your problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Betting the acronym TANSTAAFL never even thinks of coming close to these discussions...
(or if they do, the sentence "We'll tell 'em that e're gonna make the one-percenters will pay for it!" will be uttered, followed by a lot of laughter...)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Trump? I mean, he's promised making someone build something and pay for it, too, before...
Re: (Score:2)
Betting the acronym TANSTAAFL never even thinks of coming close to these discussions
Of course TANSTAAFL. There is always a price to pay. But for a poor person with no Internet, is it worth seeing some ads to get it? I think most poor people would say yes. I use plenty of ad supported services, even though I am not poor, just cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue for myself and many others is not so much the advertising but the data aggregation and control/censorship-by-exclusion inherent in such a system. It will literally become FBInet in more ways than one.
I see this as a way to corral the masses living on entitlements into an internet 'safe space' ("safe" as defined by TPTB) where information can be controlled and individuals and their communications monitored.
Once such
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Mark Zuckerberg and Washington DC politicians are working on a plan to solve all your problems.
Business and government working together...controlling mass communication and information platforms...I know there's a name for that! Something that started with an 'F', I think...
Oh well, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
They'd spy on it no matter what, that's not the issue here.
The issue here is that this internet is "free" because they would have direct access to everything you do on their "free" internet, which in Facebook's case means they'll be building ever larger dossiers on all the unfortunate sods stuck on this garbage.
Clearly they'll do this anyway, but this just cuts out the Facebook webbug middle man and feeds your internet activity directly into FB's data gathering apparatus. I'm sure the terms of service for
Re: (Score:1)
It will be called FBI - Face Book Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It probably isn't. After all, Facebook wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Your fun at partys
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Oh. Sorry. I thought we were speaking Tamarian.
Re: (Score:2)
If a private corporation 'talks' to 'the government', then it's almost exclusively either about collusion and corruption or it is plain fascism.
Also, don't forget the large amount of Facebook shares that Goldman Sachs owns. They invested heavily in this company.
Why? Cashless society of course. If everybody has 'free' internet, it's easy to implement exclusively digital financial transactions.
And guess how big your (negative) interest will be and where your
Re: (Score:2)
Because it breaks Net Neutrality.
I give India credit for being smart.
Actually, India said "no" for two large reasons:
(1) There was a specific Indian Internet startup that has about 5% of the Jobs Board market, and they were about to be shut out of the market that Facebook was about to open up by providing Jobs Board access to pretty much everyone -- only not their Jobs Board. Rather than pay the entry fee, and join the subsidy group of web sites, this startup decided to spend the money they would have spent on that lobbying against the idea, and buying as many politicians a