[hackinthebochs]

Exactly this. It is downright appalling every time I see someone from a place of privilege declare what's best for the unprivileged. All this vitriol against FreeBasics is exactly that. Until I see a mass of extremely poor indians with no internet access reject FreeBasics because they don't want facebook to have their "data", all this hate is just self-serving bluster in my eyes.

[abhaga]

You speak as if those not on the internet can not already joining it in hordes. And those opposed to FreeBasics are somehow holding the keys.

When looking at the two camps here, you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest in having users locked up in their walled gardens but doubt the intentions of a motley group of activists including startup founders, university professors, policy experts among others who do not have any direct incentive to oppose people coming on to internet and also do not control that access in anyway?

[hackinthebochs]

>can not already joining it in hordes.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you meant here.

>you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest

I'm absolutely 100% convinced FB is doing this to be in on the ground floor of the explosion of internet access in India. And I don't see that as a bad thing. AOL happened, and it helped get a lot of people online earlier than they would have otherwise (AOL was my first foray online). The free and open internet will survive. But getting poor people online ASAP is the far more important concern for them than ensuring that their access is completely open when they do.

Furthermore, I'm not questioning the motives of those that are loudly against this. Their motives are crystal clear. It's those very motives that are misplaced. The values of the privileged are entirely different from the unprivileged. The problem is that the privileged tend to have a tragically narrow perspective and assume that their values are universally correct.

I mean, how easy is it to say "free and open access or nothing (for them)!" when you're not personally giving up anything? It's absurd on its face.

[abhaga]

>> can not already joining it in hordes. > Sorry, I can't figure out what you meant here.

Yes, typos are hard to process, especially when you have context. I meant "are not already joining."

Are you defining privileged as those people who do not agree with you? Because in economic, social and other terms, I fail to see how those supporting FreeBasics are any less privileged. In fact, they are the top of the privilege pyramid.

And here's the thing. All these bleeding heart pro-poor telcos in fact want differential pricing so that they can charge more for VoIP services. How does that tie-in with this narrative of poor people?

Replace FreeBasics by a targeted scheme with measurable outcomes and provisions for how it will auto dismantle as it achieves its goals, and then let's talk. Otherwise it is all baloney.

[mrow84]

Do you think that there are no issues with information asymmetry between Facebook and the people who they are trying to co-opt into their programme?

You appear to believe that the motivations of the Internet-literate about the consequences of Facebook's programme are more nefarious than the motivations of Facebook itself, which is contractually bound to operate in the interests of its shareholders.

[hackinthebochs]

Not nefarious, but rather misguided. Those speaking out against freebasics are judging it based on their own value system, which is going to be entirely different than the people such a program is targeting. And so the conclusions they draw are not valid for the people they are project them on to.

I don't think any transaction with information asymmetry is inherently exploitative. But more generally, I think the concern about who is doing what with your "data" is the concern of the relatively privileged. No one is going to be concerned about behavioral profiling when they're concerned about where their next meal is coming from. These people are concerned with the latter, while the activists are valuing the former which has little to no value to someone in the latter condition (their condition may not be that bad, but its a poignant example).

[BlackFly]

So what you are saying is that this article is worthless because it doesn't contain anecdotal opinions of the people who would be served?

Going back in history, there were plenty of woman during the suffrage who stood up and proclaimed they should not be given the vote. Further back, there were plenty of abused wives who proclaimed they should not be allowed to divorce their husbands. Further back, there were plenty of slaves who proclaimed they should not be given freedom.

Now we have a class of highly exploited individuals and an organization that wants to give "internet" access to these individuals but only if their personal data can always be exploited over that highly manicured network. The government cannot shirk its duty to protect these individuals. They will need to monitor "Free Basics" for abuse. The service will not be free from the public perspective and their are better things the government could do for those people.

[hackinthebochs]

The critical difference is that those fighting for suffrage were fighting to increase women's choices. Any woman who thought women shouldn't vote was free to not vote. In this case, people are lobbying to prevent people from having the choice.