Hacker News Reader

Comment by circuitslave | Hacker News Reader

It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.

View on HN

I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.

I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.

If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?

In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.

Textual porn, at least, is not a significant bandwidth sink...

> If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?

No, not really. It's giving them an option, and they can decide for themselves.

The way that story played out is that people hooked on AOL validated the concept and paved the way for broadband and Web as we know it, so not sure how it's illustrative of the issues with Internet.org.

That's a fair point. Another way that it played out is that people like my parents were under the impression they still had to pay $9.99/month for AOL email as recently as like 2 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com