[talwai]

I love to demonize big tech as much as the next guy, but I really think the public consensus in India against Internet.org is inherently biased. The catalyst for the movement was a Youtube video. The chosen method of lodging protest was via email. AIB themselves would not be the thought leaders they are today if internet access was restricted to them. Every activist has been, by definition, in a position of privilege with respect to internet access. It seems we are cautiously ignoring the situation of the millions who have not had internet penetration till date and to whom the internet is broadly synonymous with "major" services like Facebook and Wikipedia. I am not in favor of Facebook forming their own internet cartel and I think anti-trust laws should work tirelessly to prevent that. But I think if you gave the average unconnected Indian a choice between no internet on ideological principles, and free internet, but restricted to Facebook and a few other services, they would choose connectivity any day of the week

[cmadan]

> But I think if you gave the average unconnected Indian a choice between no internet on ideological principles, and free internet, but restricted to Facebook and a few other services, they would choose connectivity any day of the week

Sure they would. Does that mean it is good for the ecosystem on the whole? No.

80% of internet.org users are users with existing data plans. How hard do you think it is to get someone switch over from free to paid? Even for a person of privilege, he will prefer a free meal over a paid meal unless there is a huge difference in quality of a free meal (e.g. bread) vs. paid plan (e.g. steak). Considering that only well capitalised companies can provide free meals, you have just made the uphill battle that startups everyday fight against BigCos into a vertical slope.

It doesn't have to be like this. The Delhi Government is going to soon roll out a free neutral Internet covering large parts of the city. There are many models of free Internet implemented all over the world.

We'll get connectivity to the millions, but it won't be on Facebook terms - it'll be on the terms as decided by a democratically elected nation.

[jace]

Under Internet.org, none of us activists would have that voice anyway. It's a carefully curated walled garden, not the internet. It doesn't include YouTube, email, or any videos at all.

We are agitating to ensure everyone else gets the full internet, not just Facebook. It's not that hard. The government already collects 5% of all telco revenues for a "universal service obligation fund" and has not spent it. The money sitting in that account alone could give everyone internet access.

[ShirsenduK]

Let me give you a quick recap of history. 250+ years back India was _NOT_ a great place. There was huge economic and educational divide. The rich kings kept getting richer and the poor just surviving. For them education wasn't even an after thought. Then came the Anglo-European travellers with their Bible to rid us of all our miseries. Slinging their religion they _did_ help remove some of the inequalities. Provided modern and great education. But the missionaries were soon followed by the imperialists. The missionaries had no clue what hit them. And what followed was 200 years of darkness and 1000s of steps backward. The Internet is the ultimate equaliser! It empowers people to rise up, just like education. India today is again _NOT_ a great nation. And Zuck and his crew are trying sling Internet the same way as the Bible was. While this might be a good thing at first sight, its _NOT_ and the effects of it will be realised 20-30 years later and by then my friend it would be too late. Just too late. Maybe Zuck and us won't be even around. Please take a moment [use system II in daniel kahneman words] and think through, we are privileged and the goal should be to bring everyone at the same level with the same world view.