A data-driven argument on why Marc Andreessen is wrong about Free Basics | Hacker News Reader

A data-driven argument on why Marc Andreessen is wrong about Free Basics

medium.com

74 pointsnileshtrivedi17 comments

Freebasics is a poorly disguised but bold move to colonize Internet in developing countries. A brief prequel: http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-a...

Freebasics campaign was so flawed and the desperation in willfully misleading people was not even on an acceptable moral terms. Facebook spent a whooping 100 Crore INR for promotion and used the term "Free Internet". More about this here: http://scroll.in/article/802128/indias-internet-regulator-ju...

Andreessen/zuckerberg is setting a very bad example here. These tweets are a testimony to the desperation and an act of trying to flex muscle. Tech industry luminaries are least expected to be willfully trying to rob the basic rights of a common man. Sadly we would remain silent partners to the spoiling fabric - if we don't vehemently oppose.

I really wish the restrictions can be reduced or removed so @pmarca etc can tweet more on the companies of which they are on the board of.

This stuff is why Adreessen-Horowitz are the Koch Brothers of Silicon Valley. They might think deeply about what they invest in, but everything they say about public matters has a deep sense of entitlement to it.

It is very disappointing to see people who pioneered the Internet, and made fantastically wealthy in the process, abandon the old idealism of helping people - unless it conforms to their investments.

Reminds me of the comic about the guy who grew up on utopian futurism magazines only to find out it was all made up, and that people in Silicon Valley only cared about people with brains or money.

http://www.electricsheepcomix.com/almostguy/

This stuff is why HN commenters are the Adolf Hitlers of the internet. Etc. Etc.

P.S. Can we get a Hacker News ignore function? Is there a chrome extension that offers that?

There's a brain function that lets you ignore things that you don't like, if you choose not to think about them.

So not thinking about things you don't like makes them disappear?

That's odd, because I spend about 0% of my time thinking about dumb Hacker News comments, and yet I can see them right there, and before you know it, I've read them and wasted my precious time. How come?

>So not thinking about things you don't like makes them disappear?

Precisely. Never underestimate the power of the logic-proof compartment. Every propagandist since Edward Bernays has understood that you can repeat information enough times to make it real. Likewise it works in reverse.

>...and before you know it, I've read them and wasted my precious time. How come?

If you're still here, then how precious is your time, really? Or are you simply trying to justify not spending your every waking moment...what is it they say in Silicon Valley..."hustling"?

I think you're missing the point.

I'm proposing HN introduce a feature that exists on virtually every message board on the internet (i.e. blocking users). That's because its usefulness is well-recognised.

I fail to see what being here has to do with how precious my time is. My time is precious to me as soon as I start to value some experiences over others and decide which ones I consider valuable, and which ones I consider a waste. I don't have to be spending my every waking moment "hustling" to have a concept of value.

Reading comments from authors that I find interesting is a valuable use of my time.

Reading comments from authors that I find stupid and annoying is a waste of my time.

That's why I wish I could prevent that from happening.

"Not thinking" about the existence of such users is in no way a solution to that problem.

Maybe you think I'm stupid and annoying today.

Maybe you forget my username and after some time you see a comment of mine that is insightful and meaningful.

Do you recognize the flaw in your logic?

No, I don't see any flaw.

Am I supposed to carefully read every stupid comment from a poster that so far has only annoyed me on the off chance that he writes something insightful once in a blue moon?

I'll ignore him and take that risk. I'm sure it's still a +EV move overall.

If you insist on living in an airtight echo chamber, I cannot help you by offering advice you disagree with.

An "airtight echo chamber" would be a situation where the only information I get is a restatement of something I already know.

It's not even remotely analogous to what I'm suggesting, which is simply filtering out (some of) the noise.

Socrates criticized writing and reading because to him it atrophied the ability to remember things. I wonder what will happen to your brain if you use technology to filter things you don't like. Will you become more sensitive to annoyances you haven't yet blocked?

But maybe you're in too deep, and a filter might be good for you, because you seem to be unable to ignore my noisy and precious-time-wasting posts on your own.

Then don't read them. Problem solved.

How do you decide not to read a comment before you've read it?

It's pretty core to HN that everyone sees the same stuff (modulo 'showdead' in profiles)—same front page, same comments. There's no question that this brings many local annoyances, but it also has some global advantages. So we're reluctant to change it.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073237 and marked it off-topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com