[devindotcom]

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.

I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.

[yggydrasily]

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.

[drumdance]

Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.

[rms_returns]

They did their best to kill Linux:

- Negotiation and "arrangements" with OEMs that they will only pre-install Windows on all devices.

- Allowing "selective piracy" to happen so the masses are addicted only to Windows, while they still earn from corporate clients.

- Making Word/Excel formats not compatible with ODF (Open Document Format), thus making it difficult for OpenOffice/LibreOffice to function.

If I think about it, it seems like a wonder that I even have Linux running on my laptop today!

[samstave]

Walmart was in the same class

[DavidChouinard]

All successful companies are part of the class, visible or not.

[tylermauthe]

I'm sure you're right, but I'm curious -- in what ways?

[awqrre]

What Facebook is trying to do is completely different... you were always able to use non-microsoft products/programs on Windows or browse non-microsoft websites... what Facebook is trying to do is much worst (probably evil).

[habosa]

You could also view it as not too different. Windows wanted to be the platform under everything. Now Facebook wants to be the platform under everything, and content/apps will have to go through Facebook (look at the direct publishing stuff they're already doing).

[awqrre]

You don't have to go through Microsoft to publish Windows apps... not sure if it changed with Windows 10 though... but of course they are trying to change that to be like Android and iOS and get complete control.

[sirkneeland]

Windows 10 for PCs offers the store but does not require you to publish through it.

For now, anyway.

[wslh]

But the big difference is: you could reverse engineer Microsoft Windows to do what you want beyond the APIs provided but you can't reverse engineer Facebook because you don't have the code running on your machine.

[joenathan]

Zuckerberg is the new Zuckerberg! What's up with all these comparisons? You are trying to make one man into another man, they are different men, with different things going through their heads, stop it.

[circuitslave]

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

[everly]

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.

[hackinthebochs]

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.

[abhaga]

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)

[hackinthebochs]

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.

[Pyxl101]

> 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.

[prostoalex]

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.

[everly]

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.

[rpgmaker]

Actually, there's no reason to believe that his effort is sincere. His main company has a pretty bad track record of being sincere or upfront about anything it has ever done. Many on HN are sympathetic to him because he seems to be like us but he isn't. Like you said: he is more like 90s Bill Gates than he is like any of us.

[knughit]

Why do you think many of us are not like 90s Bill Gates?

[72deluxe]

Let's just grab our wikipedia archive and get off the net; it has been going downhill for a while now.

Time to detach.

[ignoramous]

Strange that you find the CEO utmost sincere but the company utmost suspicious.

If I were you, I'd question the intentions too. The arguments have been laid out against "Free Basics" but Facebook has refused to engage the community. It continues to push its agenda forward by running dubious ad-campaigns and surveys.

This is the second time Facebook has tried something similar, after having lost the first round of battle that led to many Indians uninstalling apps and boycotting websites that supported/participated in its "internet.org" initiative.

Zuckerberg has managed to PR himself as sincere, honest, noble, altruist and what not... but that PR hasn't worked in India. He, personally, holds no sway unlike, may be, in SV.

"Free Basics" let's not kid ourselves is a move by Facebook to take control of the Internet. It already controls 4 of the most popular apps on mobile in the English speaking world (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger); with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

You even see Google trying to do that in a more subtle way... googleweblight, subsidized Nexus line of products, "free and open source" Android with tightly controlled ecosystem, Chrome with properiteary plug-ins, Fiber, Fi, and OnHub to quote a few.

[rms_returns]

> with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

It is not just that. The worrying thing is that they are violating net neutrality by making sure that "FB and friends" is the only thing accessible on this free internet. If Mr. Zuckerberg is that altruistic, why not provide proper full internet? Even a limited (say 500MB per person/month) internet for free is better than nothing.

But no, they want to violate net neutrality by disallowing everyone else. They don't want to provide HTTPS security, but again snoop around their user's data so monies could be made out of that. Is this altruism, Mr. Zuckerberg?

[bduerst]

Facebook is blatantly violating net neutrality.

I'm surprised this isn't in headlines. Imagine the backlash if Comcast charged you to access Netflix but gave you free NBC.com streaming.

[Pyxl101]

I thought that Facebook claimed that anyone can make apps available in Free Basics:

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

> Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it.

> In order to make your website display properly within the Free Basics Platform and be accessible to people on all types of phones and data plans, your mobile website(s) must meet certain technical conditions created by the Free Basics proxy. [...]

Granted, I don't know how difficult it is to get a service included, but I've seen them mention a number of times that they intend enrollment to be open to anyone. The participation page seems focused primarily on technical issues like how easy the site is to proxy and cache, in order to serve a bandwidth-light version.

[ucaetano]

The content of your app is also subject to Facebook's Terms of Use:

> Developer participation on the Free Basics Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms. Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Free Basics, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook.

Which essentially makes FB the gatekeeper of the internet.

[nileshtrivedi]

Facebook competitors like Google, Twitter, Telegram are all conspicuously absent from such a good opportunity. Could it be because the terms and conditions are actually prohibitive?

[madaxe_again]

It's irrelevant - they're selling it as "the internet", but this is actually a regulated walled garden over which they have complete control. You may want to have a read about Net Neutrality and what it means - if your ISP can choose which sites you can and can't visit, can choose which content you can and can't read - that's not "free" or "open". It's "closed" and "closed".

[avar]

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.

[rms_returns]

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.

[wavefunction]

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.

[dclowd9901]

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.

[tim333]

> 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.

[tobtoh]

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...

[Lawtonfogle]

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.

[dingo_bat]

>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?

[thewhitetulip]

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.

[sidthekid]

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?

[thewhitetulip]

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.

[imakesnowflakes]

> 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?

[RodericDay]

> 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.

[dingo_bat]

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.

[o0o0_ooo]

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...

[kbart]

"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.

[tylermauthe]

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

[hackinthebochs]

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

[abhaga]

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.

[mkagenius]

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.

[jace]

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.

[nileshtrivedi]

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.

[avar]

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.

[bduerst]

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.

[gauravagarwalr]

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

[avar]

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

[kafkaesq]

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

Agreed. Given what we know about his history, he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. And that the fact that everything they say and do within his realm is relentlessly indexed, analyzed (with literally the most advanced AI techniques money can buy), gleefully pimped out to advertisers -- and at the request of authoritarian governments, outright blocked -- is on balance, all in their best interest.

[Apocryphon]

he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices.

It's tragic that this is a mistake we see again and again in tech, even with the presence of anti-authority/countercultural tendencies and groups in this field.

[bdamm]

Every day I'm asked to reduce the choices I provide to my users. I work in cryptography infrastructure. And frankly, sometimes it's much better to provide a sane default and let the ones who really care figure out their own path.

[peteretep]

Steve Jobs was the same.

Doesn't mean they weren't both right though.

[fleitz]

Umm... free internet/basics/walled garden is an additional choice... Not sure how free basics reduces choice.

[LoSboccacc]

If you don't know what real shrimp tastes and you are force fed surimi during a massive disinformation campaign that tells surimi is all shrimp you need, would you call that a choice?

[fleitz]

I dunno but I can tell you that if I was an indentured servant I would under no circumstances accept a free lobster dinner more than thrice a week.

I hear that Facebook employees don't even have such minimal guarantees as indentured servants who could reasonably expect to bw offered something other than lobster at least 4 times a week.

Zuck has brainwashed people to such a degree that they think this 'lobster' is actually good food.

[harveywi]

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab

Does anyone recall what Zuckerberg said about the people who "trust him"?

[lunula]

Apparently we shouldn't mention this here because he said it when he was young and likely to say reprehensible things.

But, has he ever apologized?

I am discontent to watch the world lay power at his feet, and proud of Indians for standing up to him.

[codexon]

This is what he said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

And young is when you are in your early teens, I think he was a junior in college when this happened and his frontal cortex should have been fully developed by then.

[jsprogrammer]

More important than an apology would be a statement that it is no longer true (if that is, in fact, the case).

Anyone have a link to such a statement?

[hellameta]

Although it may give some positive press - the reality is that he was a young adult when he said it and he simply can't take it back. We don't need to pretend he's some kind of saint. This fake modesty is seriously nonsense. Zuck is a competitor and a winner and does what is necessary. That's it.

[knughit]

Competing and winning has no dependency on harvesting user data and giving it away to his friends for their own personal use.

[hellameta]

I'm quite sure I addressed that in 3/4 sentences in my post. He is no saint.

[scope]

African here (WE are poor too, "Free Basics" will serve us as well)

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

I personally think you're a lobbyist or you just like Mark (I mean who wouldn't, eccentric billionaire who gave MOST of his fortune away to a good cause. How could he possibly want to make MORE money)

> But he is looking from the inside out.

Yeah, EXACTLY, ask US (poor people) what we want! --- WE want our Mellenia to use snapchat (with the effects & everything), Netflix & Chill...oh my bad, I lost my train of thought. What I wanted to say was that, WE want you people (first world) to donate to UNICEF so the starving child with a fly on his eye can eat --- that was my outside-in view.

Edit: to all the poor Indians who fought against "free basics", my upmost respect & gratitude --- I hope someday we can all Netflix & Chill instead of just pocking ;)

[rms_returns]

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

Or, is he desperately trying to save his company by getting the last remaining drops of users in a rapidly diminishing market for new user base?

If you think about it, Facebook is not a monopoly that it used to be in the early 2000s, even comparing it Microsoft Windows (like someone did in this thread) is an erroneous exercise.

Windows had a kind of monopoly on PC world that perhaps no other software product in the history of computing ever had. But Facebook has tonnes of alternatives. There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others. Granted that none of them is an exact replacement for FB, but then again, everything has its pros and cons, its a monopolistic competition anyways where each product in a competitive market is a monopoloy in itself.

[sirkneeland]

There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others

That's not the real threat to Facebook's empire. Those are all tools used by people in their late 20s and 30s who came of age in a desktop-first world and Facebook is comfortable coexisting with them.

The thing that is a threat to Facebook long term is mobie apps like Snapchat, YikYak and other things we old farts haven't even heard of. They are used by (and represent) a new generation of truly mobile-first users for whom Facebook is something their parents ("old people") use. The biggest risk Facebook has with these users is not that it just unused, but uncool.

[oxide]

>Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

>I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately.

why?

[click170]

I can't speak for op but I agree with them and can explain why I feel that way.

I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me. They want to make the world a better place, and they are simply pursuing an agenda that accomplishes that in their eyes.

I don't have any evidence that most people aren't evil, but in my day to day interactions I have yet to meet someone who I believe is sincerely evil. I'm sure they're out there, I just have faith that there's a lot more of the rest of us.

Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world? (For the record I'm opposed to Free Basics)

[chongli]

How much does it really matter, though? I'm sure Kim Jong-Un thinks he's making his country a better place, as thought Hitler.

Perhaps we should focus more on judging the outcomes of people's actions instead of their intent.

[click170]

I completely agree, results matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes.

[jotux]

This reminds me of the saying, "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."

[hellameta]

You should go deeper. That you believe people aren't evil from experience is not evidence that people do not do evil - it's evidence that nobody does evil knowingly/willingly etc. You can do 'evil' very easily if you don't think it's evil. If you've justified it in some way that makes it good. That's what's so dangerous about it.

[forgottenpass]

I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me.

I believe most people are incapable of recognizing well-intentioned but bad actions when they agree with the intentions. Even when you don't agree with the intentions, it's can still be hard to spot without the benefit of hindsight.

Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world?

"Fault" is quite a slippery word to use in this context. As it means both a failing of character and responsibility for wrongdoing.

Obviously with the second definition it's easy to fault someone when you see their actions as wrongdoing.

With the first it's mixed, and I suspect that's the one you mean. Someone who is "being the change they want to see in the world" is seen as virtuous. But when that virtuous person is also too headstrong to see, acknowledge, and correct the negatives of their plans when they encounter well-articulated resistance? Yes, I would very much fault that person.

[macspoofing]

It is possible that he could see it as a land grab but not see a "land grab" as inherently evil.

[knughit]

"Manifest Destiny"

[colordrops]

I don't know about "evil", but I've met many people that could be described as sociopaths, especially in the VC realm in SV. They will lie, cheat, and steal from you without batting an eye, and smile and shake your hand the next day. It's not far fetched to believe that Zuckerburg, who is tight with that circle, could also exhibit the same behavior. I found the selfish attitudes of those around me rubbing off on me, especially when it felt like morals and ethics were holding me back as a business founder. But I also felt it was making me ill, both psychologically and physically, and decided to pull back from that degradation.

[rodgerd]

Intent is not magic.

[gauravagarwalr]

He is sincere in making FB the internet. Those are never noble intentions. He is all for the money rather than actually giving a service for the greater good. I am sure he realizes that.

If he was sincere, he would have been truthful rather than using every kind of fallacy from https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fall....

[tomphoolery]

I think there's another motive at play, he's using 3rd-world countries as a proving ground for tiered Internet access. Facebook has already come out against net neutrality, and has billions of dollars to play with. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to test their theories that have been shot down in their own country? Zuckerberg might be ostensibly altruistic about his lofty goal of bringing Internet access to everyone, but that's not the Internet we know and love. It's only the content that Facebook approves, and if you want more knowledge, you're gonna have to pay. That's not the Web I grew up with, and if I were Indian I would be trying my hardest to figure out a better solution that gives just the same amount of people access without them having to give up their freedom.

[fleitz]

Even if there were only one package of internet available globally there would still be tiered internet, you can pay for that one package, or you can not pay for it.

The only way we'd have universal untiered internet is if there was some sort of government fee / tax that you just had to pay to get internet and that was your only option.

Everyone has vastly different (tiered) internet experiences, for example the internet on my phone is faster than the internet on my desktop when uploading.

On my phone I pay for additional data use on my desktop I don't.

[bhashkarsharma]

The difference is that if you choose to go to any URL, you can (not considering device capability and support; flash etc) from any of your devices. And what you pay to go to one website is the same amount that you pay to go to a different website as long as you use the same amount of data. Data rates being different across networks is a different issue.

[chrischen]

If you look at every individual decision one makes it's rarely ever malicious. The reason to limit government power isn't necessarily because the government currently is bad, but that over a long period it sets a bad trajectory.

Every decision must be evaluated based on its long term trajectory. For example, giving a benevolent government unchecked powers will actually produce short term efficiency gains. But given infinite time, and the fact that it only takes one Hitler to fuck things up completely, it reasons that giving a government unchecked powers will inevitably lead to that scenario.

In Zuckerberg's case, regardless of his motivations, his plan will most likely have short term benefits. It's unfortunate because that's a great selling point. Unfortunately the net neutrality precedent it sets for the long term is bad, and just like Nazi America with a government with unchecked powers, letting Facebook do this is equivalent to giving them a monopoly because such an action will inevitably converge in abuse at some point in the future by integrating over the individual benevolent actions over an infinite amount of time.

[RodericDay]

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

> However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.

Why not just give people free bundles of data and let them gravitate towards Facebook how we do in ie: North America?

[zouhair]

Sincere? Really? I have more of a feeling the guy is a psychopath.

[piyushpr134]

IF he is so sincere, then why not give the whole internet free? Why route all the traffic via fb servers ? Why force no encryption?

[arsenide]

Thank you for expressing this in a coherent way. I think there are a good number of people in positions of power truly trying to do things for the common good but instead individuals on the outside look at it and think these people are doing them for only corporate gain.

[kinj28]

people who have no access to wifi or 3G internet would be the most likely users of free basics. And infrastructure in form of pathetic internet connectivity in form of 2g or edge or even gprs would be the given. Heartening thing I would look up to is if this would compel telcos to improve infra