Just Say No to Facebook's Internet.org, Says Inventor of World Wide Web
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
If they want to launch FacebookNet or MiniNet or FooNet or whatever, more power to them, but this isn't the Internet and shouldn't be branded as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyong_(network)
Upon a request, whole websites may be downloaded from the Internet, undergo review and censorship, and be published on Kwangmyong
Good question. I'd rather let people decide that for themselves than have wealthy people half way around the globe decide it for them by removing one option.
I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid.
In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making.
In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"
What you're really saying is that somebody has a positive obligation to provide every human on earth a particular product, presumably at a price that each can "afford." This claim presents several unsolvable problems.
First, there's no objective way to determine what this price might be for each person.
Second, if we could establish a price for each individual person to get "full internet," you must admit that any person might prefer Zuck's "partial internet" at, some lower price. If this person's preference runs counter to my sensibilities, that's my problem to get over.
Third, on whom does this obligation fall? Are you personally the one obligated to provide every human this product? If not you personally then whom? Zuck? Santa Clause?
Fourth, on what basis shall we draw the list of products that I will demand be affordably provided me? And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt, except professor never assigned Locke or Hobbes.
Internet access seems rather high up the hierarchy of needs especially in countries where starvation remains known. What shall they demand next, Ferraris? Reductio ad absurdum.
> And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt.
It's from the UN.
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/
> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
> The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.
It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.
In England you can get internet access via their computers for out-of-work benefits in JobCentres; there's other Internet access in public libraries; some hospitals and gp surgeries provide wifi.
That Internet is not great - slow, with quite a lot of limits, but it is provided.
The fact that I can rely on the existence of high-quality open source software to use in my projects does not mean that I may demand that you or anyone else write it and offer it for free. If I go hiking on the trail near my house, I know that I can expect "free" plastic bags in the city dispenser to clean up after my dog. Their existence does not make it my "right" to receive them for free.
I pointed out where the UN says it's a right. You say that it's not about being cut off, it's about provision, so I point to it being provided, and now you say that's not what you mean either.
I dunno what to tell you. Access to the Internet is seen as a right in some regions, and you shouldn't be kicked off the Internet for IP violations, and someone should be providing access to the Internet, and in England that someone is national government (Department of Work and Pensions) and local government (public libraries).
Sorry, yes HN apparently has a limit to nesting of replies, so I cannot reply directly. I'm sure that replying a level up is bad etiquette, so this is the last time I will do it.
I will leave it at this. My position is that there is no sound philosophical basis for positive rights (the claim that one person is entitled to receive something that must be produced by another person). On other words, my rights are only to be left alone to satisfy my desired ends by my chosen means without force or coercion by another party.
This speaks nothing of what "society" or one's fellow man "ought" to do. Rights to no involve "ought."
But lack of free and targeted internet is not poverty. Internet is already extremely cheap in India - cheaper than USA for example - and is easily available via mobile phones that are more ubiquitous than toilets!
To say that Internet.org is an alternative to no internet is not only disingenuous it is basically a mockery of 'them 3rd worlders...' as if they will never get internet without Internet.org. And that too for India? A country that has achieved more feats in technology domain than many of the first world countries (and before solving the problem of toilet)? It is hard to sell product to a level-headed person.
Not to say that Indian government is squarely going to reject Internet.org - Indian government - specially judiciary - is mind bogglingly corrupt - but it should be rejected.
To your point, if they were just upfront about what they're doing, it wouldn't be an issue.
Media captures the mindset of the time, but mindset changes, orphaning the sentiment.
Which is all the more reason to be suspicious.
No internet births wireless ISP's and Co-op internet and mobile providers.
If there is a free, but limited, internet then customers might not be willing to pay money for internet service anymore and there won't be enough demand for a business to try to bring real internet to those areas.
> Mark Zuckerberg had come out in defence of the programme, saying it did not block or throttle services and is not in conflict with net neutrality.
Also, if you use Internet.org, you cannot use other websites unless you stop using Internet.org, you get a "fuck off" message for any other website you want to visit, even if you want to pay for it with usual pay as you go data charges.
Arguments that "saying it did not block or throttle services", tries to imply that "This is not the Internet, so we are not blocking anything on the Internet". That's just hogwash.
"Developer participation on the Internet.org Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms . Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Internet.org, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook. Submission does not guarantee that your site(s) will be made available through Internet.org."
All of the proposed charitable objectives(as opposed to Facebook's own interests) would be served by just providing free internet with a limited data cap.
Customers would want more data badly, local entrepreneurs would be free to make any kind of app to serve the poor, rather than being restricted by Facebook's guidelines, and can even be not disallowed to compete with Facebook.
The problem with internet connectivity in India is that rural areas do not have good coverage or fiber or even copper. Internet.org doesn't address any of this, so this is NOT aimed at the poor.
It is instead aimed at teenagers, who can't pay for their own data packs yet, but still have access to smartphones. Facebook is trying to ensure that no startup ever takes mindshare away from Facebook.
And vice-versa: when you talk to the unconnected, what is preventing them from getting online? Are data costs the main barrier? Anecdotally (and admittedly my personal conversations aren’t an exhaustive survey) in India even from lower-income people I hear people talk a lot more about needing money to buy/repair a phone compared to anyone saying they can’t afford a data plan.
Internet.org is probably more likely to move existing Internet users onto the walled garden, because everyone loves free things.
Should foreign companies be allowed to create monopolies, because potential local competitors do not have enough capital currently?
I guess the obvious answer is no, but its still an interesting line of discussion.
>I don't know that a small business in Zambia has the capital to expand considering how many people can afford it.
1.http://liquidtelecom.com/news-events/news/263-liquid-telecom...
Great point. "Small data payloads" would become a factor in competition, too.
It's so easy to make choices for others when you already have what they don't.
They have no way to make an informed choice, or even to make a choice, and there is no media who speaks out for them. There is no wallet for them to vote from, and no competition to choose from.
Instead the whole move is designed to prevent them from making choices, in the future, choices that are contrary to Facebook's market domination.
I see your point, but most safety regulation could be criticized the same way. We as a society won't allow you to buy or sell a house that doesn't meet building codes, meat that doesn't pass inspection, etc.
This is a restriction on your freedom and could be viewed as paternalistic, but it also prevents poor, desperate people from getting sick living in asbestos houses.
Is Facebook-controlled internet like an asbestos house? Arguably.
It appears Facebook is one of those entrepreneurs. There was no internet; now there is internet.org and whatever those other ambitious entrepreneurs have offered.
Actually, the opposite is true. When people have no internet, they don't know about the internet, and therefore don't want it. When people have a little internet, they realize how great the internet it is, and want more of it. It's like offering a free sample; no different than any other marketing tactic. If the thing being marketed is a good thing, then surely the marketing tactic is good? ( as long as it isn't exploitative or anti-competitive or anything)
Internet.org is not mis-named, it's an intentional hijacking of the "internet" brand to refer to a different network with different people and institutions in control.
Even AOL was more Internet than this.
https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero-rating-and-t...
Another post worth reading on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3l9y7t/net_neutralit...
And anyway, that seems an odd criticism to make on a forum built around the same basic principle - people link content here, and discuss it here as well.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA for a first-hand account of the situation.
If Zuckerberg actually felt as philanthropic as he pretends to be, he should try to bring the real Internet to everyone, with no other hidden agendas (he is trying to portray Internet.org as a philanthropic thing not as a Facebook global domination strategy, after all).
(Also, in light of Internet.org, Instant Articles seem like a pretty democratic thing to do - bringing external content that would otherwise be blocked into this context.)
I don't really know, but I hope they would go for the bazar over the cathedral. I don't see why Facebook should get a first shot at hiding the reality of the system from them.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the problem. Internet.org sounds like an effort to create a monopoly by collaborating with governments, at the expense of real Internet access by the citizens those governments are supposed to represent, to ensure they're in charge of the Internet when these markets become robust. It sounds terribly corrupt, to me. If Facebook's corrupt efforts can help to define what "Internet" means for most of a continent, imagine the consequences.
See this review: https://medium.com/mwater-technology-for-water-and-health/re...
None of this is made easier or possible by any technological framework provided by Internet.org.
You are free to optimise mobile websites for slow connections on the normal Internet. Governments should be moving towards full and complete Internet with a restricted data cap instead. The next best thing would be something ad-supported, rather than this.
Perhaps there's room within the remaining 10% to create a VPN and fudge access to the free internet? Perhaps using TCP-over-DNS, or even something ridiculous like TCP-over-Facebook-chat?
This shift of thinking is vividly interesting, it is quite possible that next time people won't object.
However, it is still a limited internet because it runs on top of IP networks provided by existing ISPs, who are using public spectrum. This public spectrum was auctioned for telecom and Internet services, the public and regulators still need to look at how this will skew the market and competition.
I understand it can't happen like that, but you get the general idea. (Something like "general purpose computing FTW". One can dream, right?)
What do you think that means?
I don't want you to look up a definition for me (I can do that myself after all), I want you to describe what that concept makes you think and feel.
Its not a binary choice.
What would your reaction be if ISPs made Netflix traffic outrageously exorbitant, and made its own competitor free?
Those ISPs have bought public spectrum to provide telecom and internet services. Public spectrum being used to make services of foreign companies free, while making other traffic expensive, is something a democratic population should be concerned about.
I'm surprised that Berners-Lee is taking this stance. If anyone, he should understand the critical importance of access to basic information and communication. Connectivity is a cornerstone for developing nations and allowing young minds to prosper. I feel this is a basic human right, but over half of the world's population is not online. They cannot afford it or they do not see the value it provides.
It is grossly presumptuous to say that a small subset of the internet is worse than no internet access at all. The pure internet is obviously better than internet.org. Once people can see the vastness of the internet, nobody will want to be stuck behind a firewall.
Tim Berners-Lee would rather impoverished people have no access to connectivity rather than access to Facebook's watered-down version. He wants them to reject and deny one of the most important things they now have access to. Would he also tell starving children to turn away food donations that are not organic? I guess he would tell them to "Just say no"
Building out a cell network for the whole world isn't easy. It is much more feasible to partner with the existing providers who already reach the vast majority of the world's population. Although I agree it would be way better, I'm not sure how you'd convince them to make their entire service free.
It's like saying "We'll build Wal-marts in every town, that way they'll learn to love shopping so much they'll start competing local businesses." It's transparently disingenuous, and completely unrealistic.
Wow, this is horridly ignorant of the level of awareness in countries where Internet.org is trying to operate.
Let's take India.
People: homeless people, poor people, people in villages; all know what the Internet is. To some level. Not everyone uses it (esp. older people); not everyone is sure what it is -- but it's used in almost every social bubble by some people so people are aware of it and know its value. A lot of low-income families use Whatsapp, for example.
Internet.org isn't targeted towards the people who don't use the Internet at all. It's targeted towards the people who do use the Internet, but not much. Free stuff is nice, so more and more people will move on to the free Internet.org. There's no altruism here. It's a plain and simple business tactic.
> Building out a cell network for the whole world isn't easy.
Nobody's saying they should. But for the same amount of investment they could provide services like free Internet with a data cap. Make a landing page with a prominent link to Facebook or something. Meh.
> The rampant use of VPNs in China is a good example.
No it's not. That has nothing to do with this whatsoever. That's censorship.
> But we need to crawl before we can walk. Once people are online a bit, they quickly want to see it all.
At any point do you see Facebook committing to bringing the whole Internet to these people? I wouldn't really mind if it said that internet.org would be replaced with a full internet in 5 years or so.
Exactly. How will they get this glimpse from within a corporately delineated sandbox? Or one could see the vastness from afar, yearn for it, and make it happen. Give a man a fish and he becomes full and dependent upon the fish-monger. Tell a man that he can learn to fish and when he does he will never be hungry.
So why not give full connectivity? Facebook Net is some next level BS. Facebook is treating poor people as secondary citizens who are only interesting from a consumption perspective while the rest of us have access to the full power of the internet and all the benefits it brings. The gap between the haves and have-nots only continues to expand.
There are ways to provide a neutral internet for free.
See Mozilla's partnership with Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. (You get 20MB of free data for viewing a ad). More details here:
https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2015/05/05/mozilla-view-o...
Or Pepsi's campaign in India where you get codes on buying a soda, where each code gets you some data.
If Mark was indeed altruistic, he could get people 50MB of free data, which wouldn't have costed more than what it's costing him now(assuming that people would use more than 50 MB of fb on internet.org).
But that wouldn't have allowed him to create a sustainable monopoly, even if people would have used facebook on a free neutral network, which would still have fetched him money.
The only value of this deal to Mark is that Facebook gets to create a monopoly. This is something that should worry you.
Free neutral Internet with a small data cap is much better than this, if you want to give 'some' Internet to the poor. "No internet" vs "subset of Internet" is a glaring false dichotomy if I ever saw one.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...