[yc_2345]

As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap.

Also, I think it is good for all parties concerned, because most developing economies will have a big problem becoming developed economies if their people are under constant surveillance from entities who may benefit from their continuation as developing economies.

Case in point: the US dollar is a horrible currency if looked at in isolation - after all, why the heck should the rest of the world pay American kids lots of money to have a great time at college and then turn around and default on their debt? Student loan forgiveness is almost a certainty over the next few years. But people still flock to the US dollar because it is far better than the other places money could go. There may be a hint of conspiracy theory in this, for sure, but it does not require a wild stretch of imagination to expect that the country where Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is headquartered actually has a real incentive to foment violence in other countries and make their own economy and thus currency look better in comparison.

[pushpop]

> As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap.

...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent, they need to charge a comparable local rate. That’s not patronising, this literally how all businesses work when having to compete with regional price differences.

As for the rest of your post: it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind. I’d be the first to agree that there are some serious issues with some of America’s domestic and foreign policies but none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation (and some weren’t even remotely based on reality)

[yc_2345]

>>...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent

Interesting comparison. Let us discuss that a little further.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

So Facebook provided free internet to Myanmar, and it was better than the "cheaper local equivalent" because it was actually free. Soon all the ISPs in Myanmar were out of business. Facebook was now synonymous with the internet in Myanmar, and suddenly it became a lot easier to influence people into doing pogroms. Now clearly a "western subscription service" successfully competed, and unfortunately, the pogrom did not affect the "western subscription service" in any way while millions of real humans became refugees.

Generally, people's answer to this is something like "yeah, it is too bad the people were such idiots to be provoked into such violence" or in some way blaming the naivete of the local population. But imagine if Facebook was actually asked to pay compensation for every affected person, or to stop business operations in Myanmar altogether. See, you can actually do that with a local company because they have some real skin in the game.

To complete my point, I don't actually give a damn if a "western subscription service" can compete for my business unless I have a way to drag Zuckerberg (figuratively speaking of course, a minion of Zuckerberg will do) to my country for trial and then send him to the local prison if found guilty of some local law. Think of it as "terms of providing service".

>>it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind

Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country".

>>none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation

If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.

[pushpop]

Facebook is an edge case because that’s a problem in every country and frankly that whole “free internet” mission was clearly a bullshit move from the outset (even people in the west weren’t the slightest bit convinced by Zuckerburgs motives). However that still doesn’t prove your claim that every western company exists in developing counties specifically to further your economic strife (which is the accusation you’re levelling against the west).

If you want to argue that American corporate culture is a toxic breed of short-sighted greed or that developing economies are better served with local businesses then at least try to do so without all the conspiracy theories and personal attacks. It’s not exactly a hard topic to argue rationally after all.

> Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country".

It’s not “patronising“ to say that companies need to offer regional rates to compete in regional economies.

You might argue that its unfair to put local companies out of business or that western corporations deserve no claim in developing nations; but that’s categorically not what “patronising” means (and also a very different point to the one I was making).

Don’t just take my word for it though, look the word up in any of the numerous online dictionaries :)

>> none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation.

> If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.

I wasn’t trying to refute your claims (mainly because most of them were far fetched - even by your own admission). I was saying they’re a complete tangent to the topic of conversation.

Look, if you want to bleat on about the evils of western influence on developing economies then fine. But at least acknowledge it’s a largely unrelated rant to the conversation that precedes it.....and also don’t make accusations about other HN posters when you don’t understand the terms you’re accusing them of.

[yc_2345]

>>Don’t just take my word for it though, look the word up in any of the numerous online dictionaries :)

>>You then run the risk of excluding developing economies

"Patronizing: apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending"

I see. So, let us back up a little to your first statement. Why is the risk of excluding developing economies a problem (for the developing economy), again? I will be very happy to take back my assumption about what you implied there, provided you can give me an explanation for why it is a "risk" and who actually bears the risk.

>>Facebook is an edge case because that’s a problem in every country

It is not an edge case if it leads to making assumptions which are clearly bad for our future. Because Facebook isn't getting any real punishment, people are only going to say "Nothing happened to Facebook. Why should the other companies worry about lying to governments/ lying to customers/ privacy issues/ data collection / retargeting / lookalike audience" etc.

>>However that still doesn’t prove your claim that every western company exists in developing counties specifically to further your economic strife (which is the accusation you’re levelling against the west)

I am not sure why you feel that way. Specifically, what I am saying is that I don't like people starting off with statements such as "you then run the risk of excluding developing economies" as if that is automatically a bad thing for the developing economies.

[pushpop]

> I see. So, let us back up a little to your first statement. Why is the risk of excluding developing economies a problem (for the developing economy), again?

This is the question you should have opened with :)

I never said it was a problem for the developing country. I was talking purely about the economics of Facebook. If they (Facebook) want to expend their demographic then they would need be affordable in each economic environment. Whether you (the respective county) want them there or not is another matter entirely.

Frankly I’d be happier if Facebook failed in my own country rather than expanded their global presence into yours as well; but that wasn’t the topic being discussed at that time.

> It is not an edge case if it leads to making assumptions which are clearly bad for our future.

Technically it still would be when using the correct definition of edge case ;)

> Because Facebook isn't getting any real punishment, people are only going to say "Nothing happened to Facebook. Why should the other companies worry about lying to governments/ lying to customers/ privacy issues/ data collection / retargeting / lookalike audience" etc.

I agree that’s a problem but, once again, you’re arguing a completely different topic.

> I am not sure why you feel that way.

Frankly put: because I’m not biased. You feel like you’ve had an injustice so you’re lashing out at everyone. I totally get that. I’ve been really privileged to grow up in the U.K. but I’ve also spent a lot of time in developing countries so I’ve seen both sides of the argument.

> Specifically, what I am saying is that I don't like people starting off with statements such as "you then run the risk of excluding developing economies" as if that is automatically a bad thing for the developing economies.

That literally wasn’t what was said though. The context was never about what was good or bad for those counties; economically, socially, not by any other metric. The context of my original post and the entire chain of conversation that preceded it was a theoretic one about how Facebook might counter abuse on its platform. The context was always about Facebook specifically. This is why I have repeatedly said you’ve gone waaaaaay off topic.

If you want to change the conversation to the evils of western corporations then please bare in mind that HN is ostensibly a tech and business forum so people will often talk about things from the perspective of tech giants even if they don’t actually support the operations of those corporations. Thus it would benefit everyone if you didn’t jump to conclusions, making personal accusations about the opinions of HN posters on entirely different subject matters just because they happen to make an impartial point on a company you have a personal vendetta against.