To them, Facebook is the internet. They don't have email accounts. They don't use the browser. They don't search the web. I met someone in a small town who never even used the maps feature. I tried to think of what value the true internet might bring them, but when I suggested that "you can search for news and read other things", the response was that they already did that with the Facebook App.
One guy handed me his phone, so I could add myself as a friend on his Facebook. While I started typing my name, I noticed his search history... and to him, Facebook was even a substitute for what people in the USA might use Incognito mode for!
I would call Facebook their internet portal, but it's not really a portal to anything - Facebook is just the entire internet to them.
Buzzfeed (yes, Buzzfeed) did an excellent writeup of Myanmar, that mirrors what I saw there: https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fake-news-spreads-tru....
“Nobody asks, they don’t care about the email,” he said, explaining that most don’t know that creating an email address is free, and easy. “No one is using that. They have Facebook.”
Since you are as surprised as I was a month back, I've looked further and concluded that buzz feed actually funds very high quality journalism (yes yes shocking I know) and presents facts from both sides. They do it using the money generated from click baits. I'd even make what will sound like a hyperbole , if you are the sort that wants truth on both sides of political spectrum and not just an echo chamber , go to buzz feed, and not NY TIMES or wapo.
There are more than 2 sides to a story.
They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.
Would you really say that Buzzfeed's bias strains your credulity, or is it more likely that you simply disagree with them?
You can't see that a video shaped entirely by left-wing identity politics that blames all men for the crimes of a few, that ignores practical realities contributing to the issue, has a left-wing bias? Are you serious?
I recall at the time that people kept nitpicking over the misspelling of a bank (in a way that suggested people of a certain expertise never make spelling errors, which is simply untrue). It was a sensational story at the time, but all one needs to do now is to look back and compare it to what we know now.
Yes and at one time AOL occupied a similar role. And everyone moved out of the walled garden and onto the real internet just fine.
This time they have algorithms that can prevent you from wanting to leave.
I doubt it's the same thing.
In which developing countries does Facebook have a "monopoly" over internet infrastructure?
The Guardian has a couple of decent writeups about it too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-...
I guess the concern is that people will confuse Facebook for the Internet, and they’ll think they’re getting the Internet for free. It then becomes very difficult for a real ISP offering full Internet access to enter the market.
I don’t know if they have “monopolies”, as OP claimed, but these are the countries where they operate:
Facebook are the agent of foreign states, we must control our own critically important infrastructure! (cheers) Free internet for all! (more cheers)
Populism is so hot right now.
You're conflating two things. If the US somehow lost all steel foundries without being able to spin things up in a reasonable amount of time, we're screwed in a war. You must indeed make sure that you're self-sufficient in things that are essential for living in case you're cut off due to circumstances.
I'm not quite sure what your point is.