Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

What bothered me most about some recent headlines was that they kept saying how Zuckerberg is trying to bring the "Internet" to Africa and whatnot, when in fact they were referring to "Internet.org", i.e. only about 50 websites of the whole World Wide Web - 50 websites that are completely "curated", per the local governments' wishes. Is that the kind of "Internet" we want the other 2-3 billion people to get?

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).

View on HN

Perhaps it's an idealistic view where "content pays for infrastructure", which on the surface appears like a Comcast move and against the grain of net neutrality.

I agree with you, but also: right now Facebook is effectively the main web browser for millions and millions of people. Even without Internet.org, those 50 websites are all a lot of people see. How can we change this model in a realistic, attractive, non-techno-utopian way?

(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.)

Isn't Google's approach "realistic"? They're just pulling fiber in Africa, without walled gardens. They now have better networks in Uganda than we have in the Bay Area.

https://www.google.com/get/projectlink/

Despite a lot of fiber in Africa, connectivity is hampered by ISPs refusing to pay for bandwidth, ultimately resulting in super slow connection speeds and horrible latency.

> Facebook is effectively the main web browser...

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.

Facebook might be monopolistic in some contexts because that’s what people want to use but the issue with internet.org is that communications networks are licensing public spectrum and then cutting deals for preferential access to certain websites. Regulators and the public have a direct interest in figuring out whether these sorts of schemes are acceptable.

Facebook is what people want to sue because many (maybe most) had no idea that you could hang out with friends online in a big broadcasty way until it came around. Will that be true when they realize they can make their own website or blog with their own style to share with friends and family, download torrents, edit Wikipedia, chat or IRC, or use Twitter and HN?

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 remember reading something a while ago that many people tboguth Facebook and the internet were 2 seperate things. Stemming from so you use the internet much? Most said not that much. But when asked if they used Facebook much. They said all the time. And apparently even when asked. Thougt of them as distinct entities

That might be because some providers have free facebook-only plans and paid internet plans.

main /= only. And I'd like to see a source for the assertion that it's the main browser for millions. Facebook is kinda out these days, most of my friends (predominantly not working in technology) don't post anything there except birthday greetings, use it as an event planning/invite tool, and send the occasional message.

The browsing experience offered by internet.org isn't just some walled-off version of the open internet, with network costs underwritten by Facebook. They also do a lot of work to make sites offering health information, commodity prices, local job searches etc not only viewable (layout wise) on mobile but able to work on extremely slow networks and on low-end devices.

See this review: https://medium.com/mwater-technology-for-water-and-health/re...

> They also do a lot of work to make sites offering health information, commodity prices, local job searches etc not only viewable (layout wise) on mobile but able to work on extremely slow networks and on low-end devices.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com