Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet

by panarky • 11 years ago

633 161 11 years ago

ekianjo2• 11 years ago

There's a lot of back and forth between "we applaud Facebook for this initiative" and "But that's not the right way to do it" in this piece. I usually find EFF articles well written but this one was particularly painful to read and not really insightful either.

dmix• 11 years ago

If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue. In real life people tend to have nuanced and conflicted opinions about many things.

zatkin• 11 years ago

It seems that enabling HTTPS on the Internet.org proxy is what the EFF wants out of the project.

ekianjo2• 11 years ago

If you prefer polarized opinions you can find that on any mainstream news venue

I'm fine with balanced opinions but there is no need to do the back and forth multiple times through the same article.

Lawtonfogle• 11 years ago

It is like if someone goes to a group of starving orphans and offers them food and board and education, but in exchange they must work.

On one hand, you are helping them compared to how others treat them. On the other hand, you are exploiting them for your own gain.

Even ignoring the morals of offering a bad deal to someone who only has worse deals to choose from, there is the fear that such an actor would eventually evolve to lock out others who want to help without (or with less) exploitation.

droopyEyelids• 11 years ago

I hear people try and describe this Internet.org in terms of how Facebook will have control over what information huge numbers of people can access.

Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though. He seems to really want to give the impression that this is about helping people— and not about the power of being the filter through which all information and commerce has to flow. The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.

pavanky3• 11 years ago

The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.

This is not going to happen the way the Indian telecoms are screwing up Net Neutrality. Internet.org is only part of the problem. Indian telecoms want to charge extra for OTT (over the top) services. This includes many internet messaging (ex: whatsapp) and VOIP (ex: skype) services. Internet.org sets a bad precedent where the telecoms can come up with various packages that are "free" while charging exorbitant amounts of money for the rest of the internet.

billwilliams2• 11 years ago

Usually I'm very pro internet.org with the basis for my response being "people who can't afford internet don't care about your politics, why should we get to deprive them of useful services based on a message only we care about." And I still feel thats true.

But your response is definitely the best argument against it I've seen.

chitresh3• 11 years ago

I'm all for keeping the net neutral. But let me play the devil's advocate here: When the telecoms have paid for the spectrum (there was an auction for the spectrum), how can you dictate what services they should charge for and what services they shouldn't charge for ? The spectrum is a public resource, but when the telecoms have paid for it, aren't they entitled to charge for the services they provide ?

98725• 11 years ago

So your complaint is that this will encourage more ISPs to offer free internet packages? Funny, I would have called that the best possible outcome.

pakled_engineer• 11 years ago

If you look up Internet.org free tier screenshots from users all the pics are blurred out with a sales pitch from the carrier to "upgrade to premium Facebook to see this"

lips• 11 years ago

Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though.

1) I don't quite know how to parse this. The EFF isn't characterizing the internet.org plan the same way FB is? It's a FB initiative, and EFF are watchdogs. Should I expect them to share opinions & metrics of value?

2) See also: "Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet" - Quartz article discussing the fact that many people don't understand the technical underpinnings (and thus, power dynamics) of the web/internet/API-based applications: http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...

thewarrior2• 11 years ago

Then why can't Facebook give bandwidth instead of access to a limited number of sites. They're already doing it for a few. It wouldn't cost them anything to extend it to the whole internet.

Apps like UC Browser and Opera Mini have been doing it even before we had smartphones. I still use UC Browser here as 2G is really slow. So the bandwidth used will be miniscule.

It's definitely possible for Facebook. In fact they've almost done it. The fact that they won't go the extra step and still insist on calling it "Internet.org" makes me suspicious of their intentions.

Let them go ahead. Call it Facebook.org and cut out the sanctimonious tone of pretending that it's charity.

waps• 11 years ago

Well the problem is that carriers would never agree to such a deal. It would, for instance, make generalized instant-messaging work and destroy their SMS revenue. It would also eat into their "real internet" revenues. I doubt the problem there is Facebook.

I feel a bit that people complaining about this service are self-serving. People here are complaining about things that affect them (potential future internet directions) and because of these effects millions (maybe even a billion) should be denied a free service.

I feel very, very uncomfortable with that viewpoint.

basch• 11 years ago

It wouldn't cost them anything to extend it to the whole internet.

Yes it would, the entire point of the project is to make a subset low-bandwidth standard. Highly optimized from server all the way to device. By not encrypting it they can even use multicast and caching.

When you visit an internet.org site, your phone wont load 30 tracking js files from 30 different companies. It will load the text of the page.

monochromatic• 11 years ago

Anybody else getting a 404?

cheese1756• 11 years ago

It's in maintenance mode. The homepage says that it should be online in a few minutes.

mattryanharris• 11 years ago

Yep.

barbs• 11 years ago

Here's a cached version:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...

jupake• 11 years ago

If you were in a developing country in a facebook world, this would be normal :-(

suyash• 11 years ago

Facebook and other companies are trying to make a fool out of people in developing words, Internet.org is trying to break the internet actually.

ljk• 11 years ago

world

Reply

billwilliams2• 11 years ago

This article is straight up more nuanced than I was expecting.

Reply

gabeio2• 11 years ago

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participat...

Any data (e.g., proxy requests) or reporting we provide is deemed Facebook confidential information and cannot be used by you for any advertising purposes or shared with third parties.

So they are putting a giant adblock on all of the internet.org sites? How is that in any way neutral/productive/fair?

Reply

joelrunyon6• 11 years ago

So...they can be the ones that serve ads. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?

Reply

spicyj• 11 years ago

Facebook doesn't serve ads on facebook.com when accessed via Internet.org.

Reply

tux• 11 years ago

We need a system where everything is cached what is posted on HN. Here is one more cached version; https://archive.is/SmC8U

Reply

dansoto• 11 years ago

...and not found :/

Reply

BorisMelnik2• 11 years ago

This is one of those things that I don't understand, don't have time to research but just inherently don't trust because it is a corporation that I don't trust disguised as a "dot org" when I can just feel their are ulterior motives.

Reply

gabeio2• 11 years ago

dot org isn't like dot edu where you have to verify anything. I actually bought a dot org it was as easy as a dot com. It's not really meant to look/be "trustworthy"...

Reply

BorisMelnik2• 11 years ago

true, you don't have to verify anything but utilizing a dot org does make several implications. maybe not here in the webdev or hacker community (we see past that) but this was a calculated maneuver by them to look a certain way.

Reply

bobbles• 11 years ago

It was originally created for use by non-profits and then opened up to anyone, so plenty of people still have that connotation with it

Reply

stephenr3• 11 years ago

That the .org TLD is open to anyone is a shame, and that it's used like this is even worse.

I know it will probably be an unpopular view here, but I actually quite like the approaches taken by Australia (where I grew up) and Thailand (where I live and run my business now)

In Australia you have to be a registered non-profit to get a .org.au domain, and you have to have an ABN or ACN to get a .com.au or .net.au. In the case of commercial domains, while it isn't checked at registration, if your domain name isn't somehow related to your company/brand name, (or even if it is and you aren't using it actively) you can lose it.

In Thailand, your .co.th domain name must match your company name - e.g. if you have HappyHamburger Co., Ltd, you can only register happyhamburger.co.th - this means new companies don't need to rush out and make sure they get the domain matching their company name (or even that it might be taken) to prevent squatters.

Reply

tim333• 11 years ago

I'm not sure I'd call it an 'ulterior motive' as its so obvious but there's obviously a massive benefit to Facebook from this - the potential unconnected billions will all get Facebook accounts and probably be grateful to Facebook for providing free internet. It gives Facebook a way to go from 1bn users to 5bn. I don't know if it's that much of a problem if I couldn't get net access otherwise then having a device with Facebook on it but not say Diaspora would not worry me hugely. They can always get regular open internet access when they have some money together.

Reply

pavanky3• 11 years ago

By setting themselves up as gatekeepers for free access to (portions of) the global Internet, Facebook and its partners have issued an open invitation for governments and special interest groups to lobby, cajole or threaten them to withhold particular content from their service. In other words, Internet.org would be much easier to censor than a true global Internet.

IMO, this is the key argument against Internet.org. Internet needs to be decentralized to truly remain a populist medium. Facebook knowingly or unknowingly is sowing the seeds for fracturing and killing off free, unrestricted access to the internet.

Reply

pjbrunet2• 11 years ago

It's a Microsoft strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Doesn't Zuck have enough of the Internet?

Reply

gajeam• 11 years ago

  "Oh, our eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Net,
  We are ramping up our market share, objectives will be met.
  Soon our browser will be everywhere, you ain't seen nothin' yet,
  We embrace and we extend!"
  
  Battle Hymn of the Reorg
  Anonymous Microsoft employee
  MicroNews, the in-house newsletter

http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm

Reply

xorcist• 11 years ago

Or the AOL strategy. Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will.

I can imagine Facebook would have thrived on AOL or MSN (or teletext). Zuck wouldn't have been able to start it from his college room though.

Reply

easytiger• 11 years ago

Doesn't Zuck have enough of the Internet?

Well he needs something else as facebook as we know it will be dead in 10-15 years

Reply

yaleman• 11 years ago

Hah, us rich people in "First World" countries are just a drop in the ocean - imagine owning the eyes of all the BRIC countries :D

Reply

userbinator2• 11 years ago

Incidentally, they might've also issued an open invitation to make tunneling more widely known amongst the Internet(.org)-using population.

https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel

Reply

rhino3692• 11 years ago

Why is internet.org an easier target than state run telecoms? Your ISP isn't decentralized.

Reply

Margh• 11 years ago

State run (or private) telecoms need to be greased individually and only reach as far as their individual customers. Far easier to lobby internet.org as a whole to censor a particular topic across a sizable portion of the globe.

Reply

danielmiessler• 11 years ago

Maybe this is just like the debate around driverless cars. "They're not perfect!", they say. "They're flawed just like anything else.", they say.

Well, they don't have to be perfect; they just have to be better than humans. And it turns out that's pretty easy.

So maybe rather than beat up on internet.org because it's not free as in perfection, maybe we should be happy that a billion dollar corporation is trying to do SOMETHING to help 4 billion people who can't afford the current option.

It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better, for those billions of people with no access to the internet, than having nothing at all. And I think they are meeting that and far above it.

Reply

amazon_not12• 11 years ago

The correct solution is to make real, uncensored internet access available and affordable to the masses, not to provide a better version of the North Korean intranet for free.

Reply

evincarofautumn3• 11 years ago

There’s an important difference between “right” and “good”. Providing free basic internet access is clearly good, and internet.org is doing that. Many people argue, validly, that the manner in which they’re doing so is not right.

But that’s as if I were to tell you that giving anti-malarial drugs to people is wrong, because the right thing to do is to eradicate malaria itself. That’s probably true, but the practical thing to do right now is what’s good, not necessarily what’s right. And you can work on both fronts at once: they’re orthogonal.

I don’t pretend to understand the massive logistical challenges involved in implementing this, and it makes me sigh when others no more knowledgeable than myself make armchair proclamations about what should or should not be done.

Reply

niklasni1• 11 years ago

Providing internet access in the 3rd world should be the same as anywhere else: Shut up and provide bandwidth.

Reply

jqm• 11 years ago

I would feel better about this initiative if it were being carried out by a neutral party (a charitable organization for instance) rather than Facebook. As it is I don't think it's a good idea. It has the potential to undermine the real internet by trapping people in "good enough" service and the motives are highly suspect. I'm hopeful governments will tend to agree.

Reply

98725• 11 years ago

It's providing them a free service that is by your own words, "good enough" when they currently have nothing, and you are calling that a bad thing? Come on.

Reply

amazon_not12• 11 years ago

"Good enough" is not really good enough and even if it were good enough for now, it will most definitely not be good enough in the future.

If "good enough" displaces or prevents real and open internet access from becoming a reality for all users then it is a very bad thing.

Reply

mmrasheed• 11 years ago

free internet.org access is not so free after all. It's philanthropy outside, but scam inside. Let me put in to context. Most of the people in developing countries use android based smartphones. And users can't control the application connections in android phones due to its creepy structure- any app can run anytime in the background. On the other hand, mobile operators mention that any traffic other than internet.org supported sites will be charged at usual price. So, when users enable their data connection in mobile devices to use internet.org free service, a bunch of apps connect to other servers to update, and/or sync. So, users end up paying for data anyway.

If Facebook wants to do real philanthropy, they should do it right. Develop and distribute an android app that will disable internet communication for all the apps (user controlled) and will only connect to the free services.

Reply

Supersaiyan_IV• 11 years ago

One does not simply call oneself the 'Internet', and act in its name, and behalf. There's all kinds of wrong with this.

Reply

98725• 11 years ago

No, that's pretty much the only thing I find wrong with it. And if they are willing to share the name once other groups start their own similar programs, I would even withdraw that objection.

Reply

vans• 11 years ago

WOW Huge bullshit on this website (internet.org). The story with Neesha tells us that her father "knows impressive tricks. But let's get Neesha online and see some real magic" OMG, of course, you need internet to live. Of course real life is not as magical as fake facebook friends. Of course, Neesha's father tricks are not as magic as internet... How condescending colonialist shit is this web site ?!

Reply

DanBC2• 11 years ago

For a better example of how Internet connectivity can help people in developing nations see these Internet huts used by refugees.

http://www.trust.org/slideshow/?id=356b4ab3-7e12-440f-9781-b...

> Abdul Salam, a 47-year-old Rohingya, asks a friend in Malaysia for advice [...]. His friend Muhammad Rafiq, a Rohingya in Thae Chaung village, has a son held by traffickers, and they are raising the money to pay the ransom. Abdul Salam's question is: How can he be sure the trafficker, once paid, will let the boy go?

Reply

chdir• 11 years ago

been pitched as a philanthropic initiative ...

With strings attached. It's like giving someone money & telling "you can only buy products that I approve of...". (Missing fine print: we will track you and trap you into buying these for as long as we can).

No matter how much they twist the motivations, given their history, I've no faith in them doing any good, except for their bank accounts. It's one company that has shown utter disregard for the privacy of their users.

The primary aim of internet.org is to map and build a deep graph of every living being and bolster Facebook's monopoly. In the short term, some might applaud the "free" internet carrot but the whole concept is detrimental to innovation in the long term. Either provide "real" internet without any strings attached, or else don't be surreptitious about your intentions and claim to do it for the good of humanity.

Billions of people would be happy accessing the free-but-limited internet and wouldn't have any privacy concerns. However their privacy isn't the only issue here. The problem is that these people would be unknowingly contributing to the success of the walled garden developed by FB & friends. In the future, companies aligned with them will have access to a trove of data & eyeballs. Those that aren't aligned or want to compete with them, would be shut out. This is anti-competitive. One might argue that without internet.org, these people would not have contributed anyway. However, the premise of "free" will result in a lot of paying customers to switch. And, many of those who don't have an internet connection today, might get one in the near future. One that's low speed and perhaps subsidized by the government. To understand that, you have to look at the growth rate of mobiles in 3rd world countries. The bottom of the pyramid does contribute to the success of many tier-3 cellphone manufacturers. There are people who earn less than a dollar a day but they stay connected with a mobile phone. With a connection that's not limited by any corporation.

As the old saying goes, "there's no such thing as free ...". One way or the other, someone has to pay for the internet. It's not going to come out of the FB shareholders pockets. The question we need to ask is, who is actually paying for it and what's the actual cost (not literal cost) to this freebie.

It would be a lot better if the government or a neutral organization like Mozilla takes up this initiative. I would be happy to contribute to an initiative that provides free or subsidized internet to the masses. An internet, where there's no restriction on which site you can visit. An internet, where nobody will track you or collect your data or re-sell it.

Reply

DanBC2• 11 years ago

"Here are some charity donated food vouchers. You can only isethem to buy food from KFC, McDonalds, or IHOP. Of course you can use them to buy any food you like, but that will cost extra".

Reply

98725• 11 years ago

Thanks! I haven't had anything to eat for days, this is a real help!

Reply

rhino3692• 11 years ago

That is exactly how most foreign aid to developing countries is given. Germany will give Malawia money to build a dam, but they have to pick a German construction company and engineering firm.

Reply

SixSigma2• 11 years ago

Like welfare then.

Reply

amazon_not12• 11 years ago

I was unaware of the fact that welfare cheques use some kind of special dollars which are restricted in what products or services they can be used for. If you are talking about food stamps, they are not restricted in where or what they can be used for, only in that they can only be used for food.

Reply

pratyushag• 11 years ago

Slightly off-topic: In case you are looking for a no strings attached place to donate, where money is given to women with the incentive of helping them deliver non-HIV babies, then donate to newincentives.org.

Reply

the-dude• 11 years ago

With strings attached. It's like giving someone money & telling "you can only buy products that I approve of..."

Which is basically how large parts of 'development aid' are structured : we offer you $100m if you spend at least 70% in the country of origin ( of the money ).

Reply

mkagenius3• 11 years ago

Poor people need internet and they don't care if someone spies them when they are browsing wikipedia.

People making these arguments have never been to 3rd world countries, I assume.

Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here.

Reply

nitrogen3• 11 years ago

Privacy comes at the top of Maslow's pyramid, we are talking about basic needs here.

This has nothing to do with basic needs of the recipients and everything to do with cementing Facebook's stranglehold on social networking in the developing world. There's no "next step" from here that would make Internet.org a reasonable path on a community's technological development -- this is a dead end.

Reply

mkagenius3• 11 years ago

The government is not doing anything to further the internet reach - facebook is doing it, who cares if there is a vested interest as long as the benefit is much more.

When you buy medicine it makes the pharmaceutical companies cement their stranglehold in medicine world.

Reply

timwaagh• 11 years ago

electronic frontier foundation is non democratic, not inclusive and not the internet.

Reply

vshan3• 11 years ago

I don't know what Zuckerberg has in mind, but in India at least, there have been literally a million[1] mails sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in favour of Net Neutrality: and hence India has taken a negative stance on Internet.org, since it sets a wrong precedent.

So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff.

If they are so interested in connecting the poor, then they can just allocate a certain amount of data for consumption rather than act as gatekeepers.

Also, Facebook is a corporation aiming to increase their shareholders money. Why would anybody trust them with Internet.org? Wikipedia is non-profit, so it's fine with me if it's offered for free.

[1] http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/trai-receives-over-1-m...

Reply

mkagenius3• 11 years ago

So yeah, we don't need first world people to speak for us saying how it's helping the poor and stuff.

Let the poor speak. Oh wait they can't access internet!

Reply

vshan3• 11 years ago

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NOJGZZ6TTDS00...

Please read.

Reply

sanmon3186• 11 years ago

Free access to Facebook wouldn't help 3rd world speak for itself. Poor are the products here and not free Facebook. Bill/Melinda Gates received one of the highest civilian award[1] in India this year, and people wholeheartedly supported it as far as I know.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/01/28/bill-and-melin...

Reply

nomercy400• 11 years ago

1 million emails out of 1.2 billion people is 0.08% of the people. I wouldn't be impressed.

Reply

vshan3• 11 years ago

Keep in mind that only 19%[1] of Indian population is connected to the internet, and regardless of the percentages involved, it still means that over 1 million people went out of their way and claimed their rights.

[1] http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/

Reply

zorked• 11 years ago

This is so right. It's not that the rich countries can't do anything to help, but that they are so often clueless in their approach. Internet.org is one such example even if you assume it's well-meaning.

This reminds me of all the ridiculous cheap laptops for the Third World projects - all of which completely failed. Meanwhile the factories in China keep churning out ever-cheaper laptops and phones which are having a real impact without any of the grandiose talk about Helping The Poor.

Cheaper laptops work. Laptops with hand-cranks because The Poor Don't Have Electricity don't. Internet.org is at best the Internet with a hand-crank. It's not even a step towards solving the problem.

Reply

imakesnowflakes2• 11 years ago

And I wonder what the problem is exactly? Getting internet to the poor?

How about the mobile network providers first stop robbing them blind with numerous scams and offers with hidden costs and ambiguous claims?

"New offer! Reduce your call charge to .9 Rs per 60 seconds when when you charge[1] for 350 Rs".

--Charges with 350 Rs.--

"Congratulations. Now you just need to charge again to enjoy the offer you just paid 350 Rs for!!"

Yes, that is the kind of exploitation that can happen with things like this, and there is not one damn thing that the poor can do about it.

[1]. Around here in India, "Charging" refers to adding prepaid talk time to a mobile connection often by purchasing a coupon.

Reply

schandur• 11 years ago

Personally, I wouldn't jump to call them "clueless", at least in the case of Facebook. They seem to clearly know what they are doing is not in the spirit of net neutrality, yet defend it to no end.

Reply

jarfil• 11 years ago

Those ever-cheaper laptops started as copies and spin-offs from the "helping the poor" projects and related technologies. So while the projects themselves may have failed, I wouldn't say they had no impact.

Reply

rsync• 11 years ago

"I don't know what Zuckerberg has in mind"

Then you need to purchase and read the excellent book _The Master Switch_ by Tim Wu. It is a book length answer to your specific question.

Reply

amenghra• 11 years ago

I posted about internet.org not supporting SSL/TLS two weeks ago, didn't get any upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9493253

I'm really glad the EFF is making a broader audience aware of some of these issues.

Reply

placebo• 11 years ago

Not to oversimplify this (things are not black and white etc. etc.), but it seems like the world is in a constant struggle between cynicism, greed, egotism and hypocrisy on one hand vs. idealism, generosity, selflessness and integrity on the other. In many cases, the former wins. Internet.org is just another one of these cases. Hopefully, there will be enough initiatives without a hidden agenda to balance it out.

Reply

microcolonel• 11 years ago

I think maybe the main issue with this rhetoric is the assumption that it's any of our business what facebook does with mobile characters in somebody else's country.

This is probably none of your business.

That being said, it would be nice to engineer a way to meet the bandwidth and content requirements without losing cryptographic integrity, but that's of secondary importance to getting another billion people reading Wikipedia.

Reply

hectorperez• 11 years ago

There is an open letter signed by 65 advocacy organizations in 31 countries against Internet.org https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-m...

Reply

jasonkester• 11 years ago

It's the classic Seinfeld "muffin tops" problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jGeIwebvk

Giving away free stuff isn't enough. People feel entitled to the best stuff for free, not just the free stuff you gave them. And if you offer the alternative of "then don't use the free stuff we're trying to give you" all you'll do is make them more angry at you.

You just can't stop people from looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Reply

efdee• 11 years ago

How would you feel about me giving your kids free cigarettes and painkillers?

Reply

chc• 11 years ago

As far as I can tell, Facebook is offering free access to websites whose operators agree not to be burdensome on the network. That is nothing like cigarettes, and analogizing poor people to children seems a bit degrading.

Reply

aaron695• 11 years ago

This is pretty easy to stop.

Supply the poor with open free internet.

Oh wait, then you'd have to stop being a bunch of whiny privileged people and spend your own time and, god forbid some of your own money helping the poor.

Helping the true poor is going to have a catch, there is no utopian society that's going to do it instead, grow up.

Television, which is generally consider to be very positive in impoverished countries, especially around issues like equality, had ads.

And the stations lock users down to their content often using monopolies in radio spectrum. All the while the world goes on as it always does, helping not at all.

Reply

rjaco31• 11 years ago

Then let their infrastructures at a normal pace without biasing them? Nothing wrong with that.

Reply

cmdrfred• 11 years ago

I have an even easier way, lets find a hack. Lets find a way to use this pipe that Facebook is building to allow access to the wider internet. Lets make it easy, like popcorn time and then lets give it away for free.

Reply

userbinator2• 11 years ago

Popularise tunneling? It can already be done, and they can't easily stop people from sharing information between Facebook and the outside, the real Internet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171477

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946

What they can do, however, is severely limit the bandwidth this way; it's not net-neutral at all, but tunneling does effectively break out of the walled garden.

Reply

freen• 11 years ago

"You can have all the free Monsanto brand water you want, but only to irrigate Monsanto seeds. You know, the ones that require Roundup by Monsanto to grow and don't create viable seeds of their own to replant or resell. You can't drink it, and you certainly can't build your own seed business that might compete with Monsanto either."

Getting any bits there and back at all is the hard and expensive part. A forum full of people who make a living because the internet is an open, p2p network, and we are really in favor of turning it into a TV with only one channel for billons of people just so Facebook can get a better ROI?

Congratulations: your next startup won't be viable in third world countries and your job is safe from all those people who might start their own start up or learn to code there.

Make no mistake: this is business development, not charity.

Reply

pweissbrod• 11 years ago

At least when netzero did this 15 years back they werent trying to pose themselves as a philanthropy...

Reply

bunkydoo• 11 years ago

2/3 of humanity isn't connected to the internet they say, but the problem here is that 2/3 of the population probably isn't having their basic needs met on a day to day basis. Just take for example the bathroom situation in India, let alone Africa. I don't think these people give much of a damn about getting on the internet to update their status.

Reply

Istof• 11 years ago

maybe someone with unmet basic needs would make a better use of the Internet then the average Facebook user, but that's just a guess.

Reply

socalnate1• 11 years ago

Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.

Reply

Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet

Related Stories