Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/marc-andreessen-pro-colonialism-tweet-riles-up-india-tech-world

by fforflo • 10 years ago

223 199 10 years ago

bloomberg.com

factorialboy2• 10 years ago

Extremely stupid tweet by Andreessen. He probably doesn't even realize that, like most ignorant people.

FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s.

And it was colonialism that drained the country's wealth for over two hundred years.

Here, Mr. Andreessen, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=bengal+famine

tosseraccount5• 10 years ago

Mughal Empire , sectarianism and caste system crippled India, not Britain.

vowelless• 10 years ago

Were the mughals invaders and colonisers like the British? Did they "leave" after their demise? I thought they basically became part of India, especially with their artistic and religious influence on the people.

nileshtrivedi9• 10 years ago

You should find out what India's share of world GDP and trade was when the british arrived.

dharmach2• 10 years ago

Islamic invasion, caste system and colonialism all crippled India.

typon2• 10 years ago

The revisionism in this thread is incredible. Britain enslaved an entire nation for centuries and you think that didn't cripple India? They will have to pay for their crimes one day.

jccc10• 10 years ago

FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s.

Which is exactly what he says he meant:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072752

mikeash6• 10 years ago

If I were him, I'd say I meant that too!

The original was catastrophically dumb. Was it because it's what he actually believes, or because he didn't spend more than fifteen microseconds considering his words? Beats me. Fun to watch, though.

kafkaesq5• 10 years ago

In the face of overwhelming condemnation, that might be what he now says he initially "meant." But I don't see any particular reason to believe him. He knows he's backed himself into a corner and desperately trying to spin himself out of it. But even so, that very statement you quoted (and which marca said "Exactly") to:

@pmarca referred to the post-colonial anti-colonial mix of nationalism, socialism, abuse/power that afflicted many ex-colonies

is itself pretty obtuse -- it's basically saying that post-colonial societies like India still haven't quite "grown up" yet, and don't really know what's best for them. Hence, their rejection of the wondrous gift to humanity that is Free Basics.

hackerboos• 10 years ago

It wasn't socialism, more protectionism. Investment in defunct industry and lack of investment in new technology for fear that it would overshadow the old craftmanship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHDWoQuUZo

picardo• 10 years ago

He probably meant "Anti-West" attitudes, not anti-colonialism. Coming from a third world country myself, I know there is a tendency to deny and dismiss some socially disruptive innovations because of their origin. There is a cultural trust issue there.

factorialboy2• 10 years ago

Net neutrality is not anti-West.

shripadk5• 10 years ago

India is pro-modernism. It has nothing to do with cultural trust. We just don't want to take in Western culture into India because we believe our culture, tradition and identity, that has been inherited from our ancestors for over thousands of years, needs to be protected. It is nothing against the Western culture. When we visit foreign countries we don't demand that our customs be followed but instead assimilate with that country's culture. Why do you think there are so many Indians in every part of the World living harmoniously? The same cannot be said about some other countries who are actually "Anti-West" and actively seek to change Laws in Western countries to suit their customs/traditions. We don't do such things and never will.

rorykoehler4• 10 years ago

To be fair, it was stupid, however it was also a tongue in cheek tweet that was not an endorsement of colonialism and more poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule. He was essentially making the point you made.

Gigablah• 10 years ago

poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy

Ah, that's so much better. /s

blinkingled• 10 years ago

sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule

If you understand the affects of colonialism of 200 years - economic and other exploitation - sluggish is pretty much the best case you can expect after freedom. Comparing to other colonies India has done fairly well for having being nearly destroyed and rebuilt.

Zigurd2• 10 years ago

The 1970's called. They want their stereotype of the Indian economy back: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146579/India-...

guyraput3• 10 years ago

It was just pure ignorance. Some of the larger impacts of colonialism:

Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism.

India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance

India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was just close to 10% during Independence.

India's revolutionaries who opposed colonialism and raised against the British were brutally killed or hanged under British rule.

Anyone who spoke against the colonialism were jailed.

British Divide and Rule policy still affects India today.

shas3• 10 years ago

Colonialism was one factor. It is not clear how India would have imbibed and benefited from the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution in the absence of British presence in the subcontinent. Just a reminder that British presence started in the very late 18th century, but their true hegemony was for 90 years, between 1857 and 1947. Japan had American presence, but no hegemony and is a good counterpoint to those who claim that colonialism has benefits. A few things to note: without the British, there may never have been a coherent whole of "India" as we know today. Counterfactuals are hard, but it is hard to assume that there would necessarily have been an Indian Bismarck or Garibaldi had there been no British hegemony. Different regions and kingdoms in India would have developed differently. You would have had a few Japans, notably in the South, West coast, Northeast, and parts of the Gangetic heartland: regions which were always wealthy and/or politically stable.

Whether the economy would have declined less in the absence of colonialism is really impossible to answer. But to cite colonialism as the only reason is wrong, especially since the decline coincides roughly with the scientific and industrial revolutions that occurred in Western Europe and later, America.

jgalt212• 10 years ago

Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism.

Please cite this very interesting piece of information.

rayiner3• 10 years ago

One thing I never see mentioned in this debate is the fact that America was a British colony as well, and colonial status definitely drained American wealth for centuries (though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal). But I think it's highly unlikely that America ever would've become a superpower without the benefit of British culture, institutions, and law.

JoeAltmaier2• 10 years ago

How about German culture, institutions and law? How about Bohemian? Austrian? Italian? Czech? Polish?

America was last a British colony, but it was far from a uniform culture of expat British. And it reinvented itself violently upon rebellion. Into something quite new in the world. Or at least not seen in a long time. And definitely not British.

GFK_of_xmaspast• 10 years ago

The obvious difference is that the US is run by the colonizers instead of the colonized (and look at the status of Native Americans today).

JackFr• 10 years ago

though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal

The 'Americans' were the occupiers. Native Americans have quite a tale to tell about brutality.

reitanqild• 10 years ago

+1 Interesting, we have all got a lot from Great Britain,

-that said lets not sweep the brutality against native Americans under the rug.

mvaliente2001• 10 years ago

America was different in a couple of ways. Due to its geographical position, America's cultives were similar to the ones in England. In this way, America didn't become a mono-producer to serve England's economy, as was the fate of colonies closer to the equator.

mekoka• 10 years ago

The wealth stayed in America. Also don't forget the prior free labour.

cookiecaper4• 10 years ago

Let's drop the pretense. A differing political interpretation is not necessarily a sign of ignorance, and pretending like it is only contributes to the atmosphere of toxic obstinance that has devoured our political process in recent years.

Instead of implying that Marc Andreessen is uneducated or ignorant, explain your disagreement civilly, without name-calling or mud-slinging. If the issue is too sensitive for you to do that, it's probably best to refrain from replying until you've cooled down enough to remain civil and present a legitimate counter-argument.

oxymoron2• 10 years ago

On the subject on British attitudes towards the third world, an illuminating example is that of Iran. English prospectors found oil in Iran in the early years of the 20th century, a find that in the words on Winston Churchill was "a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams". Britain established what was then the largest refinery in the world in Abadan, Iran, operated with was effectively slave labour, and spent the decades leading up to fifties with extracting vast fortunes. The Shah goverment was mostly a puppet regime and due to the British refusal to allow independent audit of the books of the Anglo-Persian oil company, only a few percent of the actual profit ended came back to the Iranian people.

The Iranian people finally rose against the imperial influence of the British and ejected all British citizens in the early years of the fifties. Mossadegh, the prime minister, rose to prominence on an anti-english platform, initially demanding a 50% share of profits and reasonable treatment of Iranian labour. The British, under Attlee as well as with Churchill back in control, selfishly rejected all attempts at comproimise, and produced several internal reports that spoke of how inferior the Iranians were as a race.

Finally, having lost their influence, the English turned to the US for assistance in overthrowing the democratically elected government. Truman resisted, but Eisenhower relented, with John Foster Dulles enthusiastically moving forward with a coup. The Shahs absolute power was reestablished, and his oppressive rule paved way for the Islamic revolution two decades later.

One of many illustrative examples of how the English could never be considered benevolent rulers.

(As described in All the Shah's men, by Stephen Kinzer)

eternalban3• 10 years ago

Above is (somewhat) right. Meet the original BP [1]

The Shah was not a puppet. Puppets dance to the tune of puppet master & master would not replace said puppet with Ayatollahs.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an Iranian Nationalist and the story of 20th century in Iran is far far more nuanced than the caricature painted by (very interested) partisans such as Kinzer.

Do the research. This [2] is the Iran that the "puppet's" father, Reza Pahlavi ("the Great") inherited. Exceptional moves by the "puppet's" father began with establishment of an independent National Bank (which did not please "master" in City of London). And continued until Iran was actually considered a geopolitical threat to the gang that started the Trilateral Commission [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company

[2] http://www.chaonix.com/DL/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf

[3] https://youtu.be/DqrHQpRHwws (Don't be confused. Jimmy here is saying Iran is /too/ stable and my friend Zibig & our friends like to see massive instability in this region until "the great game" is won.}

[minor typo edits; link fix; final edit note corrected NG pdf link.]

knight17• 10 years ago

Shashi Tharoor, MP explains Indian situation at Oxford Union:

Britain Does Owe Reparations https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4

Riod6• 10 years ago

Honestly I think this reflects a fairly common sentiment amongst westerners. Not the first time I've heard this; doubt it would be the last. I've even heard white south africans in the west say that south africa would have been better off under apartheid, to be greeted by a chorus of nodding heads. Scary people actually think subjugation is a good thing.

azzafazza4• 10 years ago

Finally he gets caught out for saying stupid shit. Every thing this man says is self serving (which is fine) but he tries to disguise it as profound knowledge. Ben Evans is 10x worse however, he is one idiotic twat.

SpeakMouthWords• 10 years ago

One of Evans' favourite debate tactics is to tweet something brimming with subtext, then when someone calls him out on it, takes a literal approach to what he said. It's infuriating.

azzafazza4• 10 years ago

You summed up exactly what I thought it in my head about his Tweets, he is positively juvenile.

justinsingh• 10 years ago

By 'says' in your comment, I hope you mean 'tweet'. Andresseen has said and done many smart things.

azzafazza4• 10 years ago

Ahh yes, an important distinction. I do mean Tweet. His tweets really sit at odds with me. He was someone I looked up to at one point, but the main interface (Twitter) I have with him portrays a very different person than the one I thought he was.

dang2• 10 years ago

idiotic twat

Ouch. Please stop posting uncivil comments to HN. Even assuming you're right, putting it this way encourages the worst from others.

yalogin• 10 years ago

Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this. On top of that he was condescending towards India by bringing up "poor" and "morality" when instead he should have commended India for not falling for the trap.

He is entitled to his opinions about colonialism. People that care about it will respond.

k-mcgrady3• 10 years ago

> "Knowing the sentiment in tech about keeping internet free from external interests, I don't know how he could support Facebook's plan like this."

He's a pretty big investor in Facebook. That's why he's willing to ignore the net neutrality implications - because it benefits him.

fwn4• 10 years ago

Because everyone with a different opinion on the most beneficial infrastructural policy is driven by pure self-interest.

..basically the pop culture version of a regulatory debate.

_yosefk2• 10 years ago

I thought net neutrality was about protecting consumers from selective high prices set by regional monopolies. Here it "protects" them from a free product that anyone is AFAIK free to compete with. Do I miss something or did things go wrong with the net neutrality idea?

timonovici• 10 years ago

That's not what neutrality means. That means the ISP doesn't take anyone side - either by making certain services faster at the expense of others being slower, or by setting preferential pricing. If facebook really cared about access to internet, they could negotiated 1 free GB of traffic / month for everyone, not just access to facebook and a few other websites that they picked.

pluma2• 10 years ago

Man wrote words on Twitter. This is news now.

justaman• 10 years ago

I'm still hoping that journalism recovers from the new paradigm that came with the dawn of the internet...

rorykoehler4• 10 years ago

Influential people's opinions have always been news. The medium they use to disperse those opinions is irrelevant.

geomark3• 10 years ago

So Free Basics has been in India for about a year already. Are any of the grand claims about it supported by the data? I like data.

nileshtrivedi9• 10 years ago

Facebook has never shared data. This is what one can figure out from bits and pieces from PR releases: https://medium.com/@sumanthr/a-data-driven-argument-on-why-m...

british_india• 10 years ago

There is one salient example: fresh water in India.

In 1947, the British departed with 24/7 pressurized water across the developed parts of India.

Now, the British-built water system has all but collapsed. Instead of pressurized water, the water comes weakly and only intermittantly. What difference does that make, you ask?

Well, if a pressurized system leaks, the leak causes water to leave the pipe. In a non-pressurized system--coupled with the user-side pumps that are used to pull in more water--leaks flow INTO the water line, bringing contamination with it. Couple that with the common practice of placing fresh water and sewer lines in the same trench and everytime somebody pumps that water toward them, they are pulling in fecal matter that leaked from the adjacent sewer lines, which also leak.

That's why Indians often cannot drink their water without going through reverse osmosis. This is just an example of how India frittered away a resource the British brought them.

ilurkedhere• 10 years ago

Interesting... Did the British also leave with the knowledge of how to maintain it?

oblio2• 10 years ago

I doubt even the Indians themselves are debating that the British brought many new technologies to India or that they maintained them well. Something which the later Indian administrations did not do as well.

But when, in the end, the whole system was a huge scam meant to get resources out of India and into Britain, everything comes into a larger perspective.

geofft4• 10 years ago

Hm, I'm curious to see more about this. I was a young child when I last visited my family in India, many years ago, but I don't remember a particular need to filter water. And if I google 'india reverse osmosis', the second result (the first is a sales site) is a Times of India article about how it's a scam:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Reverse-osmosi...

npalli• 10 years ago

Developed parts of India made up about 10% in 1947. Today Urban india is almost 35% and the population is 4 times larger. So effectively an increase of 14 times in number of people that are urbanized. Highly doubt the British system would scale to current population and density levels.

We just saw reports of Flint, Michigan and multiple cities having excessive lead and contamination in water supply etc. I wouldn't use that to suggest British need to come back and take over the US.

shripadk5• 10 years ago

The British also brought the Great Bengal Famine along with them. Funny how this 24/7 pressurized water could not prevent a famine in which millions died. And yes, the famine took place when India was still a colony of the British Empire.

tomp2• 10 years ago

Tweet in question:

“Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?”

The context is: India’s telecom regulator this week blocked Facebook's free, but limited internet service.

nileshtrivedi9• 10 years ago

What Marc, Benedict and everybody else is (conveniently) ignoring is that Facebook does NOT bear the bandwidth cost of FreeBasics. So the whole thing about "giving something for free" is disingenuous.

Indian telcos, Indian consumers and Indian public pay for FreeBasics. Fair of them to decide whether they want this scheme or not.

manojlds• 10 years ago

One of the main arguments is that the "them" doesn't include the people who would actually be benefitted.

jccc10• 10 years ago

I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on?

Yes, probably a really stupid thing to say, and perhaps wrong for many reasons.

No, he did not say India should have kept Britain as its colonial power, or any of the other incredible interpretations now flying around the Twittersphere.

Jonny Axelsson: Anti-semitism not the opposite of semitism. Now whether anti-colonialism is a thing is another thing. Americans, esp. right-wing, have Humpty Dumpty appoach to redefining words but in context is clear: @pmarca referred to the post-colonial anti-colonial mix of nationalism, socialism, abuse/power that afflicted many ex-colonies

Marc Andreessen: Exactly.

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697281882401026048

[Please disagree with Andreessen's point, not with my point that he really didn't say take India back to British colonialism but said something else that perhaps is almost as stupid.]

cynicalkane• 10 years ago

This exactly. What's going on here is the internet hate machine has found a new target, and is eager to assign the least generous possible interpretation so they can feel good about themselves, look nice and self-righteous to their friends, get up votes, and so on. If you want to attack a man, maybe it's best to figure out what he was trying to say first.

Some of the comments even in this thread are disgusting, and they are getting plenty of upvotes; and I find it curious how a community that usually decries this sort of thing becomes so quick to engage in it.

metaphorm4• 10 years ago

why are you so eager to leap to Marc Andreesen's defense? surely the man can speak for himself.

k-mcgrady3• 10 years ago

Although I think you may be right in your interpretation how is maintaining net neutrality by India 'anti-colonialist'?

jccc10• 10 years ago

I have no position on this. Please disagree with Andreessen about that, not with my objection to wild misinterpretation of him.

I have zero qualifications to have an opinion on the question you raise.

fennecfoxen• 10 years ago

For better or worse, I suspect a large part of recent developments in India regarding zero-rating services were supported as "let's deal a blow to the big bad corporations affiliated with the western civilization that colonized us! we don't like them!" rather than a matter of intrinsic merit. It's a common motive in a variety of nations.

(edit: in this case, I suspect it might be "for better" and not "for worse" in effect, but I still suspect the ulterior motive.)

wdmeldon• 10 years ago

It isn't. But ignoring the NN aspect of this discussion, the sentiment I got from the tweet was that the "anti-colonial" mindset was to drive out foreign influence, both positive and negative. The idea that the tweet was pro-colonial I believe is incorrect.

Once again, Twitter shows us why it shouldn't be used for nuanced conversation.

morgante3• 10 years ago

As a policy position, I don't think it is.

However, if you look at a lot of the rhetoric that has been used it is heavily influenced by anti-colonialism. (Don't let this Western company come in and colonize our Internet.) I suspect the debate would have been quite different if it were ex. Flipkart offering Free Basics.

mikeash6• 10 years ago

Are we supposed to disagree with his actual point, or with this obvious retcon you've quoted here?

mason240• 10 years ago

I've found that the further down the article the actual quote is, the more likely that the writer's interpretation is misleading.

First sentence

then suggesting the country would have had stronger economic growth if it had stayed under British rule rather than become independent in 1947.

Actual tweet, at the bottom

Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?

dpweb• 10 years ago

There's a case to be made about the good things colonialism brought for countries. Not a great one and you'll get shouted down however.

But this fracas really distracts from the more important issue - "net neutrality" (Colonialism is dead after all, at least early 20th century style..) The Indian government seems quite appropriate in their concerns. This whole 'denying poor people free stuff' is very likely seen as a subterfuge. Maybe 'owning' parts of the net is the new colonialism.

protomyth3• 10 years ago

I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on?

Yes. We live in a sound bite news era and if you can interpret the sound bite (tweet) in a wholly different way than intended and shout it loud enough, the original truth of the statement doesn't matter. Many of the headlines about political candidates are contradicted by the actual speeches, but SNL, late night, and reporters can make money off their interpretations.

kafkaesq5• 10 years ago

Please [don't] disagree with my point that he really didn't say take India back to British colonialism.

He didn't literally "say" that, but it's (nearly) irrelevant to point that out. The bigger point is that what he indisputably did say was, by itself, utterly idiotic and offensive.

jccc10• 10 years ago

I am not making the point that he didn't literally say what people are choosing to assume he meant. I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him.

And I am making the point that employing this misinterpretation to criticize him undermines the important, substantive reasons to criticize him.

(It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)

geomark3• 10 years ago

I think this thread might need a refresher on how to disagree [1]. Already a few DH0 offenses.

[1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

geofft4• 10 years ago

Of course, that document was written by another VC who likes to run his mouth on Twitter. So there's a legitimate discussion to be had about whether that document is poisoning the well of criticism.

Marc Andreessen is an extraordinarily influential person in tech, and that influence is based on his reputation. If a nobody like me tweeted something dumb, everyone would just ignore me. Nobody ignores Andreessen, though. Maybe it would be better for the world if his Twitter feed and mine were treated similarly, but that's not how the world works, and we have to respond to the world as it is.

Furthermore, part of his continuing influence, 20 years after Netscape, is the continuing impression that he is a clear thinker about issues facing the tech world. (See, elsewhere in this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072721 .) There are two valid discussions at play here. The first is whether Free Basics is a good idea; the second is whether Andreessen is in fact the insightful thinker he appears to be. (The specific subdiscussion about whether rejecting Free Basics is a form of anti-colonialism, incidentally, is only valid if we take it as a given that Andreessen's ideas are worth listening to in the first place.) For the second one, a record of him just not being a good or well-informed thinker is in fact refuting the central point of that argument.

xiaoma6• 10 years ago

Of course, that document was written by another VC who likes to run his mouth on Twitter. So there's a legitimate discussion to be had about whether that document is poisoning the well of criticism.

This comment itself is further argument that more people here could stand to read it. You've literally ignored the ideas within and just made an ad hominem argument based on the author instead.

cookiecaper4• 10 years ago

Marc Andreessen is an extraordinarily influential person in tech, and that influence is based on his reputation.

And that reputation is based on his position as an early luminary that made direct and real contributions to the progress of the field, and his continued ability to make great picks for VC. Andreessen, like Paul Graham, is one of the few VCs who actually understands the technical underpinnings of what's going on, which seems to seriously enhance a VC's performance.

Andreessen's political beliefs are totally irrelevant. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if he were a neo-Nazi.

metaphorm4• 10 years ago

why should anyone be required to agree to the terms set by Paul Graham or anyone else? how terribly condescending.

xiaoma6• 10 years ago

Is there anything in the actual essay you disagreed with?

To answer your question, first of all name calling and attacking the people instead of the ideas makes for a nasty and unproductive conversation—basically like youtube comment discussion.

Secondly you're on the site he built. The guidelines clearly say, "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." If you dislike the guidelines or feel that they are "terribly condescending", then maybe this isn't the ideal site for what you want.

3ris3d• 10 years ago

wow! considering the millions (if not billions) he has made from the hard work of people from India, he sure is a shameless @55h013

fwn4• 10 years ago

While probably not a smart tweet I am not sure if people just buzz about it for entertainment reasons or maybe really did not understand what he wanted to say.

..because I think the message in its context is only that using the anti-colonialism gesture is not a useful policy trick to counter facebooks free basics initiative for Indians.

On the other hand it's twitter. And they have to be outraged about something.

div0• 10 years ago

"Denying world’s poorest free partial Internet connectivity when today they have none, for ideological reasons, strikes me as morally wrong." - Mr Andreesen, given how rich you are, you need to be really careful when you talk about morals. (Quote from Bible omitted)

ericzawo• 10 years ago

While I admire Mr. Andreessen a lot for his work as an entrepreneur and investor, we're witnessing a very real amplification of the consequences behind the expression "don't meet your heroes." The difference here is that Marc is abnormally outspoken. It would be dubious to assume that similarly ignorant opinions about large swaths of the world are not also shared by some of the biggest minds in tech.

jacquesm• 10 years ago

Damage control stations!

Really, what on earth was he thinking when he wrote those tweets. And it's not the first time he pulls a gaffe like this either.

peteretep2• 10 years ago

    > Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic
    > for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?

I assumed anti-colonialism meant the license raj, protectionism, central planning, import substitution, and other illiberal policies brought in in 1947, that were sold at the time as being anti-colonial.

Can someone tell me what it actually means, or is the suggestion that these policies weren't economic suicide?

Zigurd2• 10 years ago

A casual glance at your social media feeds would have told you at least two things: 1. In India, the public rejected a massive PR campaign designed to create support for Free Basics, and went in the opposite direction; 2. That nobody from India in the US tech business thought Free Basics was a good idea.

In light of that, how Marc Andreesen thought it was a good idea to wrap his defense of Free Basics in a defense of colonialism is beyond imagining. But it does illustrate how certain stars of the tech world, some of whom have their claques on HN, can get pretty far disconnected from the real world.

Riod6• 10 years ago

The interesting thing about the luminaries of tech is that they are willing to publicly display their prejudices and ignorance. You don't see leaders in finance or airlines doing this with similar regularity.

imartin2k• 10 years ago

Looking at the amount of opinionated tweets that he writes every day, it is statistically inevitable that he at one point writes something which gets him in trouble. This simply must have been taken into account by him from the beginning when starting to use Twitter the way he does. How can he do that? He simply knows that this, like almost anything controversial people say or do, will blow over.

mikeash6• 10 years ago

In addition to the idiotic comment about colonialism, I'm curious about this new phrase he used: "partial Internet connectivity."

That's a rather Orwellian choice of words, and appears to be flying under the radar while everybody gets upset at the other stuff.

Let's call it what it really is: connectivity to a couple of services which also happen to be connected to the Internet. "Partial Internet connectivity" is about on the same level as "partial pregnancy."

fwn4• 10 years ago

Someone not sensitized by the net-neutrality debate would probably call a slow, spotty or censored internet connection still internet. But as frontiers are already pretty straight, qualitative differences in internet access already constitute a difference to what the net-neutrality side would be willing to accept as part of what can be called "internet".

This makes it funny that you name his wording "Orwellian" while subliminally reproducing this carefully crafted and politically loaded understanding of what qualifies as internet.

It in fact already is seeking political influence on a grammatical level.

mikeash6• 10 years ago

Fair, I accept that slow, spotty, and maybe even censored internet connections might qualify as "partial Internet connectivity."

But that's not at all what we're talking about here, right? The service in question allows connecting to just two sites or something?

throwaway2048• 10 years ago

"partial Internet connectivity." which is fully profitable to him as a Facebook investor.

xiaoma6• 10 years ago

Twitter is an amazing machine of outrage, misunderstanding and hatred. It allows the benign comment to be taken as an offense and it amplifies genuine offensiveness, bullying, witch-hunting and harassment.

There are some wonderful things Twitter does, especially around real time news of non-controversial events such as natural disasters, but if the service is a net positive for the world, it's by the slimmest of margins.

cookiecaper4• 10 years ago

Amazing how restricting all communication to 2-sentence soundbites leads to misunderstanding and loss of nuance.

numair• 10 years ago

First, a disclosure: I hate Facebook, I think Free Basics is evil, and I think Marc Andreesen says a lot of stupid shit.

That being said, this whole uproar is just more proof that social media is totally, utterly broken. Let me explain.

While I think Marc is on the board of an evil company and that his thought process on this matter is incredibly ignorant, I really appreciate the fact that he shares his point of view. I don't just appreciate it, I respect it. Maybe he's got a point. Maybe he doesn't. I won't know unless I hear what he's got to say, and then spend some time thinking it through. This is what intelligent, thinking people do. Before they turned into kettle pots of blind activism, this is what people went to college to learn to do. This is what makes living in a free-speech democracy so great -- people say totally crazy shit, some people agree, some people don't, it's all good.

Maybe the education system broke down or something, but people are no longer capable of dealing with viewpoints that differ from their own. They immediately label the person with whom they disagree, shame them (look at all of those screen grabs! Oh my!), and broadcast their displeasure to the world. We live in a world where people are supposedly taught to embrace those with different views -- that you and your best friend and your daughter's husband and your next door neighbor might not actually have the same exact views, but you can still be friends and get along just fine -- but this sort of tempered nuance attracts zero attention in a click-like-share world. Tolerance gains no attention in the world of social media; "disgust," "outrage," and other such intolerant reactions attract a crowd of views.

People should be thanking Marc Andreesen, the Facebook board member, for being so utterly candid about his thought process. Those in disagreement should cite facts to educate him. I'm sure he has his own facts that form his opinions (and surely, he does). Maybe his opinions won't change, and maybe those of the dissenters won't either. You know what, that's okay! That's LIFE. Life isn't about being right, it's about being alive. You can think Marc is a total moron on the India topic and still be his friend. We don't all have to agree on everything. It's WEIRD if we did -- there's nothing real about it. As I like to say, "a friend with whom you've never disagreed is a potential enemy you never knew you had."

Social media justice isn't justice, it's a modern-day mockery of the freedom of thought we fought so hard to attain. This shit is broken, folks. I don't know why Marc bothers with it, but I guess he is one of those people who thinks social media is the future of human discourse. I'm not. And that's okay.

cousin_it• 10 years ago

Yeah, I agree. Most social media makes it easier to attack than to argue, so it benefits groups that attack rather than argue. A big part of the problem is the retweeting/reblogging functionality, which seems designed to encourage aggressive mass stupidity. There's already a problem on Tumblr where people selectively quote others' private posts as public and add some political sneer. I guess the best solution is to treat internet pile-ons the same way as trolling: ban it, flag it, block it, scorn it, or walk away if all else fails.

asdfzxc• 10 years ago

Andresson basically tweeted colonialism is good for India. How can someone, especially someone from India, just agree to disagree on that. That is like saying one can make racist, sexist remarks and the people who were offended can just agree to disagree on that. At least the guy made his viewpoint public.

Besides isn't it the intolerant who shape the society around them. If one wants a community whose members aren't ignorant or bigoted, why would just a live and let live approach shape the community to one's desires?

mohsinr• 10 years ago

Do Mr. Andreessen realize what colonialism was like in India?

Following two incidents are enough to educate what a gift british colonoalism was for India:

1. Firing on Poor people http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/jbagh.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

2. Artificial Famine took Millions of Lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

jsprogrammer• 10 years ago

India’s decision to block a free Internet service from Facebook Inc.

How does Bloomberg lead with this "fact"? Facebook's offering is not Internet service, but a whitelisted pipe. Does Bloomberg normally willingly eat up and repeat corporate propaganda?

nileshtrivedi9• 10 years ago

The "free" part is also not "from" Facebook. The telco (Reliance in India's case) bear the bandwidth costs.

morgante3• 10 years ago

This headline is simply incorrect and unfair to Andreessen. Yes, it was a stupid tweet, but it does not mean that Andreessen is "pro-colonialism."

I think the anti-communism of the McCarthy era was idiotic and contrary to American values. Does that make me pro-communism? Only if you're a Republican.

cookiecaper4• 10 years ago

And so what if Andreessen is pro-Colonialism? It seems to have nothing to do with his performance as a VC or his early record as a tech entrepreneur, which is why he's noteworthy.

He's not running for political office, so his political beliefs shouldn't really make a difference. We need to be willing to accept a diversity of belief instead of feigning shock and manufacturing outrage to try to lend undue credence to our own ideas of social equality; doing that is really just an admission that the argument is on shaky ground to start with and that you don't want to allow anyone to attempt to challenge it (for fear that the ground will crack and cause the shaky belief to collapse).

return0• 10 years ago

Yay let's everyone miss the point of his tweet and focus on what language is allowed in social media, because that's all that matters.

m52go• 10 years ago

Anyone interested in a concise, passionate, but well-researched account of India's situation while it was under foreign rule should check out Will Durant's The Case For India.

It's eye-opening.

pluma2• 10 years ago

What good have the Romans ever done for us?

chvid• 10 years ago

I guess you need to pick your words with care; and not to be too direct if you want to say:

1. The "ruling" really is just protecting existing telcos' businesses.

2. Something about India being held back by corruption and bad politics.

(Not that I agree with the above.)

What would happen in USA if a big Chinese company set up free over mobile network access to select websites?

vram223• 10 years ago

Good question. Interested to see if there is any answer.

trowawee2• 10 years ago

I mean, I think we can make a decent guess. If Tencent came over to the US and offered free wifi, but it was limited to Baidu, WeChat, and QQ services, every tech celebrity in this country would flip their shit and the government would declare it illegal.

dropdatabase• 10 years ago

Well that escalated quickly

navinsylvester5• 10 years ago

Freebasics is a poorly disguised but bold move to colonize Internet in developing countries. A brief prequel: http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-a...

Freebasics campaign was so flawed and the desperation in willfully misleading people was not even on an acceptable moral terms. Facebook spent a whooping 100 Crore INR for promotion and used the term "Free Internet". More about this here: http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-a...

Andreessen/zuckerberg is setting a very bad example here. These tweets are a testimony to the desperation and an act of trying to flex muscle. Tech industry luminaries are least expected to be willfully trying to rob the basic rights of a common man. Sadly we would remain silent partners to the spoiling fabric - if we don't vehemently oppose.

navinsylvester5• 10 years ago

*second link should point to this: http://scroll.in/article/802128/indias-internet-regulator-ju...

typon2• 10 years ago

"Why won't you just lie down and let us control your internet?"

It's always annoying when poor countries act all uppity in the face of mega corporations.

tosseraccount5• 10 years ago

China blocked Google with Baidu. Russia did it with Yandex. Japan did it with Yahoo Japan.

Big countries can block global monopolies like Facebook.

danans• 10 years ago

The best reply to such simplistic pro-colonialist comments about India is this graph compiled by British economist Angus Maddison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison#/media/File:1_A...

Basically, India and China together represented the largest percentages of the world's GDP, until they were colonized, after which their contribution plunged. Of course, the decline was multifactorial - colonialism wasn't just one specific thing, and there were seeds of instability that colonists took advantage of - but the larger historical trend seems pretty clear.

navinsylvester5• 10 years ago

How has this slipped from front page so soon when the topic is still hot. Please forgive my ignorance. What is the logic behind it?. I have faith we are not elitist.

dang2• 10 years ago

It was heavily flagged by users. Flagging makes posts drop in rank.

It was also penalized by HN software called the 'flamewar detector' which reacts to overheated discussions, which this certainly is.

navinsylvester5• 10 years ago

Thanks for the clarification.

It's high time HN brings in more transparency to the whole system. I am sure the current system can be totally rigged since there is zero clarity.

HN need to adopt badges to denote each major upward/downward state transition. Users can notice discrepancy and help fine tune the system(not just flamewar detector). Better solution would be to open source few parts which play a role in fixing rank. As a community driven success story - users are not here to serve elitism nor to serve someones personal pocket. The sooner HN realizes the importance of clarity and willingness to work with community - the longer it will respected.

wrs• 10 years ago

The idiotic spectacle of otherwise intelligent people attempting to pursue a complex argument in 140-character fortune cookies is so abhorrent to me. More than anything he has actually said, Marc Andreesen's move to Twitter as the vehicle for his pronouncements has made me lose a lot of the respect I had for him. How can anyone think Twitter is appropriate for this?

kafkaesq5• 10 years ago

How can anyone think Twitter is appropriate for this?

Marc chose to do us a favor, and show us his true colors last night. And Twitter was the perfect vehicle for that.

trowawee2• 10 years ago

That's actually kinda the wonderful thing about Twitter. It's a really quick and easy way to let everybody know what you're really thinking (i.e., it's a really quick and easy way to show your ass to the entire world).

tenpoundhammer• 10 years ago

These people are shining a bright light on their own ignorance. I have worked with many Indians through out the years, and they are fiercely independent, inventive, and hard working. As a people and as a nation Indians are incredibly smart and thoughtful, it's incredibly disparaging for an outsider to claim that the Indian people don't know what's best for themselves. Under colonial rule the Indian people, their wealth, and their culture were plundered and forever destroyed, now they are seeing a similar attack coming from facebook. They are smart to carefully guard their people from corporate interests who are seeking only to exploit them.

All in all the ruling class has the same arguments now as they have always had, "What's best for everyone is what's best for me" and they are always hurt when everyone doesn't agree.

thebakeshow• 10 years ago

Unrelated, but why does bloomberg hijack my back button to make it more difficult to leave their site?

navinsylvester5• 10 years ago

I saw a producthunt post about how dysfunctional and elitist it had become. Wish we have some clarity regarding YC too. I can't seem to understand the logic behind when they move away an item from front page and on what basis. I am documenting but can anyone with experience explain the logic. I wouldn't have bothered but Andreessen has a lot of clout and not only me even others would love to understand the logic to clear the air.

xufi• 10 years ago

I feel like besides what he said, which was not well thought out of at all. India has bigger problems. I've visited it a few times and always come across how a few major cities (Bangalore/Mumbai) are the go to cities, while the government doesn't care about the outstanding issues such as the poverty rate/electricity fiasco and how that's affecting things like agriculture. I remember watching a documentary about how farmers were complaining their crops were being reaped by government ministers but nothing could be done due to the overly bureaucratic judicial system which it's self is a mess

Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

Related Stories