Earnest question: on the presumption that Free Basics (FB) will become popular if launched, trying to shoot it down means that many people (mostly poor) will not get access to the internet. How does one address this? Now, this activism can do two things: 1. Force FB's hand to make it truly open, 2. Delay universal access by regulation that prevents FB from starting up. If the result turns out to be the former, well and good. If the latter ends up happening, many people will be deprived of internet access and the opportunities for social and economic growth that come with it.
A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free 2G and older network services?)
There are alternative schemes which are already live and running:
- Aircel launched free data to all websites/apps at 64kbps.
- Airtel launched a cashback scheme for data usage in off-peak hours.
- Gigato which gives cashback for using certain apps is in grey area but definitely more neutral because you can use the cash to access the entire Internet.
- Google has launched Free WiFi in multiple places. Their Project Loon is also starting up and remains completely neutral.
- Mozilla has recommended to TRAI an ad-supported free data plan like Grameenphone (which has seen good success in Bangladesh) but granted, it hasn't yet been launched in India
They have a huge market share on the real internet, they could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow.
The fact that are attempting this means that they obviously don't believe in the longevity of their product on its own merits, so they are going to try to lock in a few users while they can.
Agreed, free-as-in-beer internet is a pretty compelling deal for poor people, even if it's limited. And Free Basics has real benefits for governments and internet carriers. Wrote more about it here[1].
It's hard to imagine (but maybe possible?) there could be a comparable quality, net-neutral alternative. What would the model be?
Facebook!=the Internet. If it's only Facebook and friends, this is not at all anything like the Internet. It's a closed platform, like 25 years ago, with walled gardens.
So people need to stop saying those criticising Free Basic are in favor of depriving poor people from the Internet.
Quite honestly this Free Basic thing is so absurd to me on the face of it I hope Facebook doesn't modify it as a result of all the increasing criticism. Then it can just face plant, which is where it ought to end up.
Even my ISP doesn't MITM my 443 connections to other services.
The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading Facebook's propaganda is pushing.
The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms".
Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries.
It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.
>The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms".
While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's faulty.
Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet. Those people are not spectacularly different from us.
By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.
> Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere.
The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access. Yes, other providers already exist (removing any need for "free basics"), which is why Facebook is abusing their position as a social network to manipulate people into supporting their plan.
They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.
> And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics.
If you read any of the other threads on this topic, you will find examples Facebook's tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics". That is their existing power as a social gatekeeper. The entire point of this new plan is to extend their gatekeeper position into one of the largest untapped markets on the planet.
Without even considering how this position would allow Facebook to monopolize the market, their power as a gatekeeper to monitor social interaction (why do you think they MitM encryption?) and manipulate public opinion is so powerful it should be seen as a threat to national sovereignty. You probably think this is hyperbole, but I'm deadly serious. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the end game of this power to use friends against each other already exists in China under the name Sesame Credit. I recommend watching this short video[1] about it by Extra Credits. Their perspective as game designers about how people can be manipulated with the mechanics of a platform is key to understanding how these new powers work.
> anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.
(minor suggestion: it's customary to note when you edit a post)
It only looks sloppy if you only focus on the narrow framing Facebook is pushing in their propaganda. If you consider the last few hundred years of history and the recent-ish trends in political and social power, Facebook's power grab is obvious.
One of the problems with your analysis, I suspect, is that you seem to be assuming that some sort of market solution will sort itself out. This is an obvious fallacy: "the market will fix things" is not a law of nature, people are not in any way "rational" in the way economists use the term ("homo economicus" doesn't exist), and the very idea of a market only works if-and-only-if consumers have accurate information, which is exactly what Facebook is manipulating.
I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!)
There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN.
Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case.
> The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access.
I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread."
It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing.
While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is "Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan."
"Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don't like."
Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship?
"They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.'
Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism.
> [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics".
Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work.
Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them.
You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the "but there's no perfect information" memes.
> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political.
Of course they are. Everything is political, because everything affects people. The idea that some people have that technology (or anything else) is somehow not political is extremely naive.
The point of my comment was that you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic instead of discussing the subject matter itself. Your new reply does a lot of the same.
> reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it?
Obviously. Are you suggesting that any critique must be made in the framing Facebook has been setting with their propaganda? Facebook gets to control the stage?
> Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button
Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.
Did you miss Facebook's scandalous "emotional contagion" experiment? Or the various other stories about how they manipulate what people see? As usual, Facebook likes to fall back on calling these tactics "an accident" when they are caught.
> size-based exceptionalism
WTF are you talking about?
Why are you inventing a straw-man big-vs-small argument while ignoring that they are a gatekeeper with the power to monitor and manipulate social interaction.
> You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists.
Nope. That was 100% based on your suggestions that the market would sort this out.
> Everything is political, because everything affects people.
You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider "extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies.
> [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...]
Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic.
People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it.
All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides.
Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular.
Your comments in this thread ("Ahh, the usual attempt to", "WTF are you talking about", and here) break the HN guidelines. Please don't be uncivil, regardless of how wrong you think someone is.
It's getting Internet access slowly, on locals' terms vs getting Facebook access soon, on Facebook's terms. And those Facebook terms include full blown surveillance. And labeling this extremely limited ecosystem as the Internet, or as essential service is factually incorrect.
This isn't quite hitting the core of the problem. If someone only has Facebook's Free Basics, then they can't conduct business on the Internet with anyone who hasn't partnered with Facebook. Not reading content, not publishing content, not downloading apps, not shopping, not email. They can only do these things if they pay a telecom for real internet access. From a user's perspective, that's still an improvement, because they would've had to pay for real internet access and now they have the option of maybe not.
But what if you want to conduct business with those people who only have Free Basics? Then Facebook has a veto over your ability to do so. They will make you partner with them, jump through hoops, and maybe pay them money. If you're thinking of competing with them, they can destroy your business with a flick of a switch. It's a power that begs to be abused. Free Basics isn't bad for users, it's bad for everyone else.
I can't say how this turns out, but it makes me happy to see the debate this is generating. A lot of people who have never heard of net neutrality are now hearing and thinking about it. That's a definite positive for India and and open internet.
Basically, all traffic to the sites on Internet.org is sent to Facebook's proxy servers (including HTTPS with "dual-certificates", as in MITM attacks), and no charge is collected from the user. Users can use either an Android app or mobile browser on featurephones. Facebook decides which sites get on this platform. (Hence no Twitter, Telegram etc)
Shouldn't a service like this use a small whitelist of sites that it provides for free (Google maps, Wikipedia, ...) and use https throughout rather than not at all? I completely understand if some services are easier to provide for free, e.g. static/cachable content that can be cached close to the users.
Also if I were Facebook I'd remove any and all Facebook services, just to prove I'm being altruistic and not trying to lock in third world users to my ads...
Really if fb can't do this then some nonprofit should.
This looks a lot like when the US got internet access, with AoL trying to be a quasi-internet within internet. I suppose you can argue "it worked" because it connected lots of households and now they have proper Internet, but the European model where governments subsidized massive backbones and municipalities created last-mile networks making "proper" internet available straight away looks more attractive in retrospect. Realistically, poor countries will have to follow the US model...
"... by throwing in short-sighted plans, you are preventing the Government and the market from thinking up plans for giving permanent access to the full Internet for these poor."
I am on the fence on whether to support Free Basics or not, but the scale tilts here for me towards Free Basics. This response is like saying, "No, don't help them - you'll prevent us from helping them at some point in the future." The poor person in the village, on the street, shouldn't have to wait five more years for the internet(in whatever form) when a solution (though partial) is available now. Suppose the government does introduce a proper 'Free Internet' plan two years later. I don't think anything would stop them from switching from the biased Free Basics to the better plans.
A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free 2G and older network services?)