[shubhamjain]

> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).

Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure.

Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.

[icebraining]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I don't see how it addresses my point.

[toyg]

The point is that Free Basics existing would automatically remove a huge amount of incentive for other solutions appearing. Why bother building a better internet if FB already provides "the essentials" to everyone? It would wipe the market before it had a chance to develop organically as it happened elsewhere. If AOL had provided free access to its own services only we would have a very different network today.

[icebraining]

The Internet market in India already has 300+ million users, and has been growing at a good pace. It's hardly an incipient market.

And besides, before AOL there was CompuServe (and Minitel, in France), which did provide access almost exclusively to its own services.

[toyg]

CompuServe never had the volume and appeal FB has today. Minitel is a good reference because it is widely credited as one of the reasons France initially experienced slow internet uptake.