[ndaugherty18]

But wouldn't getting them to information, where they can learn about the things you just said, also be helpful? There is limited resources for people trying to help the world with these goals, wouldn't this at least help (not solve)?

[cnrsvxz]

There's no doubt that's true. The Global Village Construction Set[0] is a perfect example of how to use internet access to enable hardware construction to bring about the factors necessary to create more internet access.

But critically examining whether access to facebook is even close to the optimal way to go about this is extremely important. Zuckerberg gains a huge amount of power once the majority of the world is using his service -- and this power is of a type and scope that we've never encountered before in human history. There is zero doubt that he knows this, and we're kidding ourselves by ignoring his motivations and only focusing on what appear to be the immediate benefits.

We also cannot conflate the actual service being provided with our previous decades of experience of a free and neutral internet. We don't really know what dynamics we're foisting on the rest of the world with a project like this, so it's pretty important that we engage in discussions with the actual people that it would effect.

Take, for instance, the fact that there are a few mesh networks being set up in Africa. Do the people implementing and communicating over these networks want Zuck's facebook-internet? Have we asked? Have we considered that a conversation with those people would lend us a perspective that's basically mandatory if are to believe that we're actually being charitable rather than just making ourselves feel charitable?

This is dangerous territory we're moving into, both ethically and strategically. We're setting up power structures that we may never be able to deconstruct.

[0] http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio...

[kristopolous]

no. The classic example is missionaries trying to teach malnourished landless peasants how to farm.

The real issue is water rights, land rights, and a traditional seed exchange program.

We have this notion that political self-determination is the end goal - a population having zero economic control we see as irrelevant. That's the issue in these places - they don't have a sovereignty over their own economy.

The only thing facebook could lead to for them is a popular uprising - but that will only be successful if there's a large enough middle class.

What may be more likely is that facebook will act as a further usurpation of the independent critical thought necessary for self-determination because people will have an effective propaganda tool with them at all times.

Imagine if a country wanted to filter out anti-government posts in a users news feed - giving disproportionate voice to a vocal pro-establishment minority; making them look like the silent majority; manufacturing consent as literally as possible. This will happen in your lifetime.

What a lovely future.