Internet.org: Altruistic, Or the Ultimate In Cynicism?

Nerval's Lobster writes with one take on an effort to "make Internet access available to the two-thirds of the world who are not yet connected": "In conjunction with a variety of partners (including Nokia, Opera, Qualcomm and Samsung), Facebook is launching Internet.org, which will try to make Internet access more affordable to more people. The partnership will also work on ways to lower the amount of data necessary to power most apps and Internet experiences, which could help people in areas with poor connectivity access online services, and devise incentives for businesses and manufacturers to offer customers more affordable access. Why would Facebook and its partners want to connect another 5 billion people to the Internet? Sure, there are altruistic reasons — people online can access information that will improve or even save their lives. But for Facebook, more people online equals more ad revenue, which equals more profit. Social networking in the developed world is reaching a saturation point, with a significant percentage of the population already on one (or more) social networks; only by expanding into developing nations can Facebook and its ilk maintain the growth rates that Wall Street demands. In a similar vein, building devices and services accessible via weaker Internet connections would open up a whole new customer base for the app developers and manufacturers of the world. In theory, Internet.org plans on enlisting a variety of nonprofits and 'experts' to help in its effort; but the initial announcement only lists for-profit companies among its constituency. NGOs, academics and the aforementioned experts will apparently arrive 'over time.' So is this effort really charitable, or a cynical attempt to break into new markets?"

Comments

For once Bill Gates is right

[ebno-10db]

As much as I hate to admit it, for once Bill Gates is right. People who lack enough decent food or sanitation, and suffer from chronic diseases and lack of even the most rudimentary health care, have things they need more than the Internet.

Re:For once Bill Gates is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is the motivation to provide 'aid'. Gates want to help people stay alive and facebook wants more users.

Re:For once Bill Gates is right

[ShanghaiBill]

As much as I hate to admit it, for once Bill Gates is right. People who lack enough decent food or sanitation, and suffer from chronic diseases and lack of even the most rudimentary health care, have things they need more than the Internet.

Except those basics are often unavailable because of a lack of good government, and good government almost never happens without an informed population.

Re:For once Bill Gates is right

[jythie]

Advertisers often will pay big bucks to get into emerging markets. Companies will sometimes take a decade of loss in order to ingrain themselves with some new population, or even better make that population dependent on their product while it is still cheap/free (example: free baby formula)

Re:For once Bill Gates is right

[tnk1]

You could correct that with plain old newspapers and one room schoolhouses, however. You don't need the Internet to generate a population that understands the need for good government. Indeed, you need to mainly be literate already in order to get much out of the Internet to begin with.

I'm not suggesting that they stop with what they are doing, but many times these programs spend a lot of money on something, but the maintenance costs are high, or the locals don't have the skills to maintain it themselves. The equipment is also high value stuff that corrupt officials and criminals will want to get their hands on.

Re:For once Bill Gates is right

[Jharish]

I've never really 'liked' Bill Gates, but I have admired the fact that he's a tycoon who got to where he is by not exploiting third world non-white people as most other billionaires do.

If you think about it, the 'shady but successful business practices' really only screwed other rich white people and didn't enslave entire third world countries and rape their resources like most other non-tech billionaires. For that, I see BG as an evolutionary step forward in the ecosystem of greedy business men.

Re:Evil Corporations!

[alexander_686]

Mod parent up, and to quote the summary:

So is this effort really charitable, or a cynical attempt to break into new markets?

Why can’t it be both? If the past 50 years have taught us anything, it is that Adam Smith’s invisible hand of bottom up price signals are far better than a altruistic top down approach. (And if somebody accuse me of being a evil Liberation I will point out that is a different argument – different level and types of regulations will affect the market and price signals and the society you get. As the OP said, if the internet provided is free and unrestricted why does it matter? And yes, I am with a small l. I am too pragmatic to be an ideology.)