Hacker News Reader

Comment by avar | Hacker News Reader

Oh come on, this is a guy who poorly disguises a press release about a restructuring of his finances as a letter to his daughter.

It's much more likely that Zuckerberg realizes his company is overvalued, and that he needs to acquire a massive amount of users to make up for that gap.

Subsidizing a walled-garden version of the Internet where users can only use Facebook in developing countries makes strategic sense for the company.

Facebook doesn't care about "free internet", they care about building their business, and this "free basics" program makes that patently obvious. I don't blame them or necessarily think it's a bad thing , but the propaganda associated with it is ridiculous.

View on HN

I'm from India and the conditions of many farmers is pathetic here, poverty isn't a word enough to describe their condition. They are illiterate, exploited by higher-ups in the society and struggle to get even basic necessities in life. Conditions are so gloomy that on average, one farmer commits suicide every thirty minutes in this country!

And these are the people whom Zuckerberg is targeting for the FreeBasics free internet program. Maybe, he thinks that socializing on FB or performing a quick google search on farming methods is going to help them, but that is far from reality and just fascinating thinking. All I know is that the millions that Mr. ZUckerberg spent on displaying FreeBasics ads in the Indian newspapers and TV channels would have been much better spent by actually donating that money to the farmers he intends to help.

>donating that money to the farmers he intends to help.

Donating money directly almost never helps in the long run. I think Zuckerberg is doing what he thinks is good, and I don't think free internet to farmers will do any bad. It might help only a few and by a little amount, but that is still better than nothing. Who are we to decide how somebody else organizes their charity?

> Donating money directly almost never helps in the long run.

What? The debate about the benefits of direct cash-transfers vs. more managed forms of aid is alive and well in 2015.

Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way? The government has been doing that for a long time (through subsidies and minimum purchase prices), at a much larger scale than any single person is capable of. And it hasn't improved anything much. I think it is clear that the only way to improve conditions is to enable farmers to convert their business into a sustainable one. And for that, cheap/free internet access could prove to be the turnaround factor.

Stop calling it "free internet". That's absolutely not what Facebook is offering.

> Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way? The government has been doing that for a long time (through subsidies and minimum purchase prices)

You're talking about two different things. Subsidies are different than unconditional cash transfers, the latter of which there has been recent promising research on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer

https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi...

"Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way?"

Of course it would. They could buy new, better equipment, tools, fertilizers, seeds, animals etc. My country (Lithuania) joined EU in 2004 and started direct payments to farmers via projects, that helped A LOT. Now we have big, modern cooperatives and companies that sell products worldwide instead of small, inefficient farms. What I don't understand, how could Facebook (and friends) help them? I doubt that even an unlimited Internet would be useful without an extensive education, as most older/uneducated people struggle to use even a simple cell phone.

I fail to realize how facebook itself would be a "basic" service for poor people. Haven't seen a single person who has benefited from using facebook/whatsapp to uplift their social status, that being said, what India needs is a change at a fundamental level, NOT free Internet.

Free Basics has other services apart from just facebook. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/examples

Change at a fundamental level is a good long-term goal, but do you want to make people wait 5-15 years for that, instead of getting help in the next week? Will getting free internet slow down the fundamental change?

At what cost my dear sir? The cost of FB having access to all the browsing data? and what can they possibly gain by accessing the Internet? Is the Internet going to give water in Drought? I think the people in the land of Gold are trying to solve the right problems using some weird scenario in their heads, honestly if Mr. Zuckerberg had donated the money he is wasting to trying to push free basics down the throats of Indians, then it would have had a larger impact on some of the things he is trying to attain.

I am not saying that donating money is always a good option, but it is better than giving free Internet least of all keeping whatsapp or facebook as a "basic" need.

> I don't think free internet to farmers will do any bad..

Does it intend to serve ads? How does ads work? Isn't one aspect of ads involve creating needs where there were previously none? Does it involve injecting insecurities (Ex: You are a loser if you are not fair) into the minds of the gullible and make them buy buy buy...

So, what If the end result of this is that suddenly the teenage kids of these farmers starts to spend more amount of money on cosmetics (because of Ads or to make them look good in "selfies"). Will that do them good?

No offense to you but when I hear "socialize" it raises my hackles. People at my relatively great employer use this term and for no reason. We can communicate with each other but to use a term like "socialize" is to insult both you and me, for I can find no positive association with its usage.

*and it has nothing to do with politics. I am about as Left as it gets.

No offense to you, but "socializing" means a great deal more than simply "communicating with each other," including joking, touching, laughing, sending body language and simply being in the presence of. You'd do well to not trivialize the nuances of human connection.

> farmers...illiterate, exploited by higher-ups... millions ...would have been much better spent by actually donating that money to the farmers

One of the things you might hope for connecting them is they could educate themselves, organise and fight back against being exploited. Maybe their kids can go online if they are illiterate themselves. That kind of thing is more likely to improve conditions than a modest amount of cash.

Actually it doesn't. There has been quite a bit of research and the most effective form of charity to improve conditions is through direct cash transfers.

Basically, the recipient is the best positioned to identify what will help them improve, not some well meaning remote do-gooder.

Ref: 1. http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... 2. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/alliancehpsr_dfidevidencepa...

Is there any measure of how advertising affects this?

For example, there are many in the US who are poor, but who often do not allocate the money in ways that serve their best interests, but this may largely be the result of advertisers manipulating what people think is in their best interest. But for the world's poorest, they don't have enough to be worth the investment to inundate with advertisements, so they may have better ability to decide what is in their own best interests.

How is not necessarily a bad thing? In what way could it possibly be a good thing for anybody outside of Facebook?

There are some people who are using "free basics" now that wouldn't have any Internet access without it. Now, you could argue and I'd probably agree with you that it's bad in the long term, creates a distorted market etc.

But if a foreign company offers a net subsidy to access a part of the Internet shouldn't that drive down the price of Internet access for everyone? I.e. you could access "free basics" and also have a complimentary Internet subscription that could be offered at a lower price since your Facebook traffic would be subsidized.

The whole "helping the poor" is a red herring.

Facebook could just as easily offer a net neutral internet, but they're not - that's what people are upset about.

In the scenario of free walled-garden internet access vs. no access, how can you justify claiming its not a good thing?

Because it is not a static scenario. Internet users in India grew by ~30% over last one year itself and that growth is not slowing down. And FreeBasics is not limited to people coming on the internet for the first time.

free basics is doing that at a rate of 50% per month. (according to them)

i doubt people would want to shift to free basics from a full internet and if they do then that's what they like, its their choice. We should continue using normal broadband. Now you can argue that telcos will then overcharge for normal broadband, but who knows, they might not and even if they do then TRAI can send them a notice to not do that, and they will stop like they did with the "fast lane" thingy.

That stat is misleading when you compare percentages against raw figures:

1 million: Free Basics users in India in 2015 (source: FB press release)

5.8 million: Data users acquired by Reliance, FB's sole partner in India, in 2015 (source: IAMAI)

109 million: Data users acquired by all telcos in India in 2015 (Sep 2014-Sep 2015, source: same IAMAI report)

So if Free Basics converted 50% of their users to the full Internet, that's about 500k users, or less than 0.5% of the industry's success rate.

Asking for dangerous policy exceptions because your flawed scheme has an actual success rate of 0.5% and presenting this as 50% is disingenuous at best.

50% faster conversion to full, paid Internet. Clearly, these users CAN afford the Internet, hence they are NOT the poor.

In fact, 80% of FreeBasics users are EXISTING Internet users, not NEW.

What I miss from the first line of your response is a source.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-o...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com