I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your argument at all.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your argument at all.
Most importantly, the current lack of a good education means that the Internet as a means of information transferral becomes effectively useless. Until the people have at least basic literacy skills and a moderate grasp of English, the Internet won't help them, because they won't be able to use it.
Thus, in order for free Internet to be effective as a provider of information, we first need to give the target audience an education sufficient for reading and understanding English.
Is the Internet not the best (or at least one of the best) medium for the learning of the 'encoders' necessary for wider use?
Furthermore, even if we take sufficient bandwidth to watch videos/hear audio for granted (which is a large technical problem in itself), we are still left with the problem that you first need to produce material in a language that the people actually understand (which is, all too often, not English or French or any other major language!).
> Is the Internet not the best (or at least one of the best) medium for the learning of the 'encoders' necessary for wider use?
In theory perhaps, but in practice? How many people do you know of that have learnt how to write and read using the Internet?