Facebook's Colonies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday February 26, 2015 @08:38AM from the sun-always-sets-on-the-facebook-empire dept.

sarahnaomi writes: Facebook this week released a major report on global internet access, as part of the company's Internet.org campaign, which aims to bring cheap internet to new markets in partnership with seven mobile companies. Facebook says 1.39 billion people used its product in December 2014, and it's natural for the company to try to corral the other four-fifths of the planet. But aside from ideals and growth markets, the report highlights a tension inherent to the question of access: When Facebook sets sail to disconnected markets, what version of the internet will it bring? In its report, Facebook advocates for closing the digital divide as quickly as we can, which is a good thing. But when Facebook argues that, "as use of the internet continues to expand, it will exert a powerful effect on the global economy, particularly in the developing world," it's arguing that any increase in access is inherently good, which isn't necessarily the case.

53 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sure, some access is bad by mi · 2015-02-26 08:44 · Score: 1

arguing that any increase in access is inherently good, which isn't necessarily the case
Of course, not. If the access was provided by a greedy KKKorporation, rather than the benevolent government, it is already suspect.
And if the provided link somehow prioritizes the said KKKorporation (or anybody else), that's outright evil — better to not have any access at all.
(Gebyy zl nff...)

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Sure, some access is bad by circletimessquare · 2015-02-26 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  buried in your hyperbole is a real point though: some people blindly hate government and irrationally trust corporations. other people blindly hate corporations and and irrationally trust government
  why can't someone be both?
  me: i don't trust government. i also don't trust corporations
  is such a person possible in your world?
  if i express my distrust of corporations, in your mind that means i automatically love government? why?
  it's kind of like those arguments about iran and nukes: if you don't want iran to have nukes, you must love israel and the usa. no. how about i just don't trust a theorcracy with nukes, AND i dislike american and israeli policy? why i can't i do both?
  why is there this irrational tribalism at work in the world where expressing an opinion against something automatically means i am for something else, as only determined by blind prejudice?
  it's possible to think about the problems in the world without categorizing people according to the one dimensional antagonistic stereotypes in your head
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
2. Re:Sure, some access is bad by ShanghaiBill · 2015-02-26 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  If the access was provided by a greedy KKKorporation, rather than the benevolent government, it is already suspect.
  It may be suspect, but almost any access is better than no access. If the access to the Internet includes access to Facebook (which is usually among the first things blocked by oppressive regimes), and other sites that allow peer-to-peer communication, then that is even better. So I have a hard time seeing why any increase in access is not "inherently good".
3. Re:Sure, some access is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  I think the terms 'lesser of two evils' comes in to play here.
  I personally agree with you. BUT I'd rather see a democratic Israel with nuclear weapons than a theocracy like Iran. Especially since it's a theocracy who is trying to bring about biblical 'end times.'
4. Re:Sure, some access is bad by circletimessquare · 2015-02-26 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  a corporation will bust your kneecaps if you demand higher wages, and set fire to smaller competitors. and you have no recourse. this is american history
  meanwhile, you can actually elect government officials, insist they pass anticorruption laws, and make them accountable to you. there is of course a brain dead cynicism that corruption is insurmountable, but the nordic countries and canada control corruption better than us. why can't we? and we can. and we shall
  we just passed net neutrality, we're legalizing gay marriage and marijuana. ten years ago people would laugh at me that this was impossible with the same brain dead cynicism. we will defeat citizens united and other form of government corruption and make it more accountable
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:Sure, some access is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  KKKorporation
  Well here's someone whose posts we never need to bother looking at again.
6. Re:Sure, some access is bad by mi · 2015-02-26 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  a corporation will bust your kneecaps if you demand higher wages set fire to smaller competitors
  Assault and arson are both bona-fide crimes, that a government has a right and duty to prosecute. I wish, the government busied itself with those responsibilities only...
  
  elect ... and make them accountable to you
  Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them... Great example.
  
  we just passed net neutrality
  A major intrusion into property rights and violation of one's freedom to operate one's business the way one sees fit.
  
  we're legalizing gay marriage
  A self-contradicting term akin to "meatless steak".
  But I see, what you mean. Unhappy with other people's opinions and actions and unable to convince them, you seek to either simply force them to do things your way (such as pass any and all traffic through their own cables), or redefine certain terms (such as "marriage" — which all human civilizations until 20 years ago understood to mean "union of different sexes").
  Yes, you certainly need government's ability to compel people at gunpoint to achieve those things. Without it to back your ridiculous argument, you'd still be the laughing stock you were 10 years ago...
  
  and marijuana
  Funny, how you mix introduction of new oppressive laws with abolishing old oppressive laws together — and consider both to be good things.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
7. Re:Sure, some access is bad by youngone · 2015-02-26 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure Iran is quite what you think it is. Sure the current government there is dictated to by a Theocracy, but it is also (after Israel) the most democratic system in the entire middle east. Elections in Iran are a (somewhat limited, it is true), vibrant exchange of ideas, and candidates are elected to the People's House (Parliament) who have quite different views to the Mullahs. Also the people of Iran are not all sword waving Muslim extremists. I give the current political system in Iran a generation, and it'll be swept away by a new generation who won't be dictated to anymore. Source: Regular political arguments with a (Muslim) Persian, (Christian) Iraqi, a (Muslim) Egyptian, and me, an Atheist Westerner.
8. Re:Sure, some access is bad by silentcoder · 2015-02-26 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  >On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.
  This statement is guilty of the begging the question fallacy, in fact it's begging SEVERAL questions.
  You are making numerous implicit assumptions which don't hold up to scrutiny.
  1) You assume that "reasonably free country" is a representative example of the places where corporations operate, but most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.
  2) You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim. That's not rational thought, that's a religious belief without any basis in fact. A mere moment's critical thinking and you'll be able to come up with thousands of ways a corporation can, at any moment, make more money than it could by doing that- and history is filled with examples, EVERY SINGLE DAY. A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead. Now when you or I do that, we get charged with fraud and go to jail, Oracle knew they would only face a lawsuit which would take many years to go to trail where it will be heard by a judge who probably won't understand the arguments and even if they lose they'll get a slap on the wrist because folks like you have destroyed the tort system. So the basic claim is clearly not true at all times for all transactions, in fact, for most corporations it's probably only true in a tiny minority of cases. You can try defend them on the basis of fearing government and since the other party here was the government but that's not logical. Logically you should say "if they are prepared to scam EVEN the government I fear so much with impunity, what stops them from scamming any and every other customer in the world ?"
  3) You assume that, even when 1 and 2 are both true (which is now a very small number of cases) the people in charge of the corporations will always and without exception be sufficiently competent to KNOW this. That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision. But corporations make bad decisions all the time, sometimes it's incompetence, sometimes it's a lack of perfect information or both - but you can't assume that even when both conditions hold and this really IS the best option the corporations will never end up doing something else because they didn't make the best CHOICE.
  Enron made some really bad choices - and the directors ended up deciding the best way to riches was to pay themselves massive bonusses out of the company's debt pool less than a day before they announced the company was bankrupt and over a thousand people were suddenly and surprisingly devoid of an income.
  4) But even in the vanishingly small number of cases where all three the above conditions hold you are assuming that the corporation will ONLY do the "best" thing to riches, and not the 2 best things, or the 3 best things or the 20 best things - of which ONLY the first option was one that isn't harming somebody else. PG&E was providing electricity to customers - a services they paid for while at the SAME time improving their bottom line by not paying to clean up toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.
  5) You assume that the way a product or service is provided to one customer cannot harm another.
  Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers, they are the product that facebook is selling and facebook has had a trackrecord of numerous incredibly evil things done
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
9. Re:Sure, some access is bad by mi · 2015-02-26 12:37 · Score: 1
  most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.
  First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.
  
  You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim.
  In a free country, there is simply no other way to get rich. That's my proof... The less free the country (down from "free" to "reasonably free"), the worse it is as corruption and crony capitalism open up opportunities for corporations to get rich in other ways.
  
  A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead.
  That's a rather one-sided way of describing it, but is this your argument for trusting the State government, which hired Oracle in the first place? Or for the Federal government, which made such a contract (creation of "health exchange") necessary in the first place?
  But whatever the specifics of this case, I was talking about corporations getting rich by pleasing people — people, spending their own monies, rather than government officials spending those of their constituents.
  The more money is spent by the government, the less free the citizens — and the more opportunities arise for unscrupulous corporations to profit unjustly. You can win a billion-dollar contract by giving a million to the official in charge of millions' of people taxes. But you can't do that selling to people directly — for that you have to actually deliver something decent, or fool people. Fortunately, fooling all the people all the time is notoriously difficult...
  
  That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision
  Not at all. I consider neither corporate CEOs nor government bureaucrats to be omniscient. But you seem to think, only the CEOs are fallible...
  
  PG&E was providing electricity [...] toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.
  Once again your example involves a corporation profiting from a special arrangement with the government... Don't you see the trend yet?
  
  Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers
  So long as nobody is forced to sign up, you argument is without merit.
  
  It's easy to point the finger solely at government for those but it's also false, if the government didn't exist the companies would do the SAME things
  For someone pointing out logical fallacies (real or otherwise) in other people's arguments, you are strangely susceptible to the "excluded middle". How about the government existed, but limited itself to those things enumerated in our Constitution as government's domain:
  
  Law (criminal, tort, contractual) enforcement;
  Defense from any would-be foreign invaders
  Nothing else.
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
10. Re:Sure, some access is bad by blue+trane · 2015-02-26 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them"
  There is a better way: make taxes voluntary, fund the government at zero cost through the Fed. The private sector creates at least an order of magnitude more money than government, so there is plenty of room to expand the public money supply.
  Indexation of everything (including savings, salaries, transfer payments) eliminates any potential "inflation tax".
11. Re:Sure, some access is bad by mi · 2015-02-26 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them"
  There is a better way
  I was referring to the use of the IRS as an anti-opposition weapon by a sitting President.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
12. Re:Sure, some access is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  me: i don't trust government.
  That's because you vote for idiots and crooks that are spoon fed to you by mass media. Whatever problems the government suffers are strictly your fault. Don't blame people for following your orders and being successful. Really, you shouldn't trust yourself if you can't tune out the propaganda.
13. Re:Sure, some access is bad by circletimessquare · 2015-02-26 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  the problem is corruption. which is not our fault
  any other great insights genius?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
14. Re:Sure, some access is bad by silentcoder · 2015-02-26 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Now please eradicate the false dichotomy from your thinking that makes you think "anti-corporation" must equal "pro-government".
  Then try answering me again and you may actually say something sensible.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
15. Re:Sure, some access is bad by sabbede · 2015-02-27 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Who cares how greedy the corporation is, so long as they provide a route to unrestricted communication?
  As long as they don't censor users, said users will interact and if necessary, place regulations upon the company. It's an unavoidable consequence of providing a medium from which a social system can emerge.
16. Re:Sure, some access is bad by dlt074 · 2015-02-27 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  yikes! tell me who exactly passed "net neutrality"? i believe a very small group of APPOINTED bureaucrats, imposed their agenda with ZERO congressional oversight. they wouldn't even give congress(who is our elected law makers) a copy of what they planned on imposing.
  i fail to see how this is "passing" anything. this is more along the lines of a executive decree, subject to the whims of whoever is in control at the time.
  gay marriage, is overwhelmingly voted down in most states where it comes up to a vote or addressed by its elected officials. there again, a very small group of appointed judges(better then the bureaucrats from the first case, but unelected none the less) decreeing against the will of the people.
  what good is passing anti-corruption laws, when they ignore the law? what makes one more followable then another?
  the government breaks your leg, and makes you pay for the government provided(free) crutch.
17. Re:Sure, some access is bad by circletimessquare · 2015-02-27 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  you're not an intelligent person. you should stop talking about what you can't understand
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
18. Re:Sure, some access is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-28 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  The corruption IS YOUR FAULT! You carry it in your heart, and express it with your vote! You elect corrupt people because YOU are corrupt! And you just want a piece of the action, for them to bring home the bacon. The politician is a perfect reflection, of YOU! And you just further clarified that YOU are the problem! thnakyouverymuch, asshole!
Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:47 · Score: 0

... if your only alternative is to sell your private life to suckerberg.
Third world is bad, Orwellian world is worse.
1. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Third world is bad, Orwellian world is worse.
  Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
  No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for those "Liberals" of the past adoring him...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't understand why people always bring up 1984 when we're living in a Brave New World.
3. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by tlambert · 2015-02-26 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
  If voting moves entirely online, it's possible to disenfranchise you and take away your right to vote.
  Frankly, I'd rather have the weapons pointed at us.
4. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 09:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If voting moves entirely online
  Begging the question, huh?
  Despite being perfectly possible technically voting didn't move to telephone. And even if it did, AT&T — for all the love I have for it — would not dream of impeding such voting even when it was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
  Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be homeless than to live in such a place?
  Meanwhile the loving government can punish an entire town with make-work road repairs — would you accept that as an argument against government-maintained roads?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
5. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  How I hate that company ... I hope Facebook goes bankrupt.
6. Re: Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually he despised capitalism you ignorant ranter. He distrusted corporations and government equally. The only reason 1984 postulated communism as the excuse was because in 1948 it was the more immediate threat but even within 1984 he makes it clear that if it hasn't happened that way the capitalist future would be exactly the same for privacy and freedom.
  This becomes even more obvious if you actually read his other works especially the non fiction articles. When you read 1984 again pay attention to what Goldstein says: the hierarchical stratification of society into classes by capitalism is what causes autocratic destruction of freedom. Whether the autocrats get in power by defending the system or by claiming to want to destroying it makes no difference to the end result. Orwell knew that. No he wouldn't be called a teabagger today, he would be too busy warning of the threat to liberty that the teabaggers represent. Orwell was a rationalist who trusted no ideology at all and believed in applying the best solution to the specific problem with no regard to the origins of that solution. Market where market works best. Tax funded where that works best.
  In short he was way more Chomsky than Ron Paul.
7. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Third world is bad, Orwellian world is worse.
  Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
  You are laughably ignorant of history.
  Google the history of United Fruit Company in Central and South America,
  and take special note of the fact that the US Marines were used numerous times
  to support the agenda of United Fruit.
  In more recent times, only a fool doesn't understand that the wars in Iraq had quite a lot
  to do with the "plans" of companies like KBR, Halliburton, etc.
  In summation, you are utterly and completely full of shit about corporations not acting in
  collusion with governments and the military of those governments. I'd laugh except this
  shit isn't funny.
8. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Third world is bad, Orwellian world is worse.
  Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
  No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for those "Liberals" of the past adoring him...
  Um , Orwell was a well known socialist :
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Wigan_Pier
9. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  "Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon."
  Man the mods must be braindamaged. How about you learn from someone who was a Marine who knows how the system works. You are misinforming everyone here.
  "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." [p. 10]
  "War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
  http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865
10. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  US Marines were used numerous times to support the agenda of United Fruit.
  Abroad. I was talking about the threat of government vs. the threat of corporations of the same country.
  
  In more recent times, only a fool doesn't understand
  Wow. This is the second time I am reminded of Hans Christian Andersen on one day...
  
  about corporations not acting in collusion with governments
  This was not really what I was talking about. But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege to be taking place? Corporation, at least, is doing it in order to bring some goods (such as bananas) to people, who want them... What's the government's excuse?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
11. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Um, Orwell was a well known socialist
  Only as an opposition to Franco's fascism (Orwell fought in Spanish civil war) — and until he realized, that both Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the coin of Statism.
  Whatever the Wikipedia article may say about the book, an actual quote from it says:
  
  I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.
  That anarchism may be naive, but there is certainly nothing in it about the need to confiscate money from citizens at gun-point (also lovingly referred to as "taxation") in order to build schools and otherwise "help the downtrodden".
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
12. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  How about you learn from someone who was a Marine who knows how the system works
  I'd be happy to learn from him, how to operate a weapon, but why would an average Marine know "how the system works" any better, than a software engineer, a construction worker, or a janitor?
  But if you hold Marines' political savvy in such an esteem, why don't you accept their other opinions today? They are rather Conservative for one thing — do you share that too, or are you only going to quote the few cherry-picked among them?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
13. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege to be taking place?
  Americans are supposed to believe that democracy is a fundamental human right - not just something that Americans should have but something that should be universal and irrevocable - something that everyone on the planet should have.
  But why is democracy good? In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln put it very well: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - in particular, ordinary people. The United States was founded to be different from the governments of Europe at the time: where a small hereditary ruling class lived out lives of frivolous excess by lording over everyone else - most of whom lived in poverty.
  The problem with the banana republic governments that are kept in power by the US military is that they are not democracies: they are not of, by, and for the ordinary people of that country. These banana republic governments are (often hereditary) dictatorships where ruling class exploits everyone else in the country.
  
  Corporation, at least, is doing it in order to bring some goods (such as bananas) to people, who want them... What's the government's excuse?
  In a typical banana republic situation, the corporation is controlled by a small group of people (often an extended family) that become very rich via their corporation - but fundamentally by exploiting the poor people in other countries. And these rich people are using their influence on the US government to use the US military to maintain the exploitation by keeping the banana republic government in power. In a certain sense, these rich people in the USA are acting as the ruling class exploits the people in other countries - essentially certain rich Americans are acting as foreign dictators with the support of the US military.
  These days most Americans get all sanctimonious about their opposition mistreatment of racial minorities. But foreign is now the new black. Many Americans who profess horror at the mistreatment of black people have no problem with mistreatment of foreigners - in particular, with the using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries.
14. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-26 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with the banana republic governments that are kept in power by the US military
  Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.
  
  using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries
  Citations needed. Badly...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
15. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries
  Citations needed. Badly...
  Well, how about Saudi Arabia and the Bush clan? If there's one thing that Americans are supposed to believe in, it's freedom and democracy. But the Saudi government is one of the absolute worst governments in the world on freedom and democracy. And, while you could make a compelling case that events like 9/11 are trivial in a world where 20,000 children die of poverty every single day, Saudi Arabia is right at the top of the list of countries responsible for 9/11. But thanks to the influence of the Bush clan, the USA has been doing the Saudi government all kinds of favors including providing military assistance to keep the current government in power.
  But, more broadly, pretty much all the countries that are governed by dictatorships have a small ruling class that exploits everyone else. Sure, there's still a few of these dictatorships left that are still claiming to be communist and making a big thing about being enemies of the USA. But the USA is plenty happy to cozy up to the rest of these dictatorships and provide them with weapons and other support to stay in power - in exchange for deals that allow certain US corporations to come into these countries and exploit the general population. For example, the USA typically has a number of CIA agents working out of each of its embassies - where they identify people who are advocating for workers rights and opposed to exploitation by the foreign corporations - and then help the oppressive dictatorships make such people disappear (my sister-in-law and her friend were kidnapped in such an operation back in the '90's and, while my sister-in-law managed to escape, her friend was never heard from again).
16. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by tlambert · 2015-02-26 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  If voting moves entirely online
  Begging the question, huh?
  Online voting has been performed in both Arizona, U.S., and in Estonia
  
  Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be homeless than to live in such a place?
  This type of thing has actually occurred before, disenfranchising both Women and African Americans by preventing them, en masse, from getting to the polls. It's why it's felony voter fraud to do that, in most jurisdictions. Florida is famous for having, in a number of cases, sent busses to pick up African Americans, nominally to take them to vote, but in reality, to take them far away from their registered polling places until the polls closed.
  
  Meanwhile the loving government can punish an entire town with make-work road repairs — would you accept that as an argument against government-maintained roads?
  No, but I might accept it as an argument against some governments and government officials...
17. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 22:41 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot rewriting history spotted.
18. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · 2015-02-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Citations needed. Badly...
  Well, how about Saudi Arabia and the Bush clan?
  You alleged "exploitation" of poor people in other countries by US corporations. I asked for citations and you are replying with Saudi, Bush clan, and CIA?
  That's not a citation — that's FUD. Which corporation, which country, when and how?
  
  USA typically has a number of CIA agents working out of each of its embassies
  Yes.
  
  where they identify people who are advocating for workers rights and opposed to exploitation by the foreign corporations
  Citations?
  
  then help the oppressive dictatorships make such people disappear
  Citations?
  Didn't think so...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
19. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  When mi starts demanding "citations," just do what he does:
  Link a bunch of halfway-relevant wikipedia articles.
1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... by dAzED1 · 2015-02-26 08:48 · Score: 1

Facebook might have intercepted traffic from a goodly number of people via the stupid content that they inject at so many places, but 1.39B people didn't "use" Facebook...that many might have been used by Facebook, but that's a different thing. I also highly doubt a quarter of the population of the planet was on Facebook last month. How can they imagine to justify such metrics? Is making such ridiculous claims the only reason Facebook is able to stay in business? Since when do bots, people using multiple accounts, people who don't have accounts and who have multiple computers (thus multiple footprints in their snooping-people-who-don't-have-accounts nonsense) all count as individual people? Why is what a "person" means such a complicated issue these days? Is there a word which still means what that word meant a decade ago? (end rant)
1. Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's a publicly traded company, they'll say their shit is rainbow sherbet if it makes them money.
2. Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... by CastrTroy · 2015-02-26 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  I really don't get how they can report numbers like this and not be called out on it all the time. Just from a quick Google, it looks like there's around 3 billion internet users. I would probably believe that. What they are saying is that almost half of all internet users used their site last month. Considering that Facebook is blocked in China, and China makes up 0.6 billion internet users, it makes the likelihood of them having that many users to be completely ludicrous. I know that there are ways to get around the great firewall of China, but I still don't see how they get that number. I think it has something to do with a lot of duplicate accounts. I know a lot of people who have multiple facebook accounts. Some do it because they have different groups of "friends" they don't want to co-exist, and some people do it for games, so they can gift things to themselves. There's plenty of people with a lot of accounts. I'm sure there's gold farmers in Farmville if you look for it.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  by "use" they probably mean a facebook button was presented to the Internet user sometime during the month of December---which is very likely right.
  Also, mobile phones.
4. Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... by dAzED1 · 2015-02-26 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I can tell you as someone who has a hosts file with all the various facebook host names I can come up with, that a whole bunch of the internet has those farking buttons. So yeah, "people used by facebook" - not "people who use facebook" - going to a website that has facebook content forced onto it isn't "using" facebook
Not I, said the fly. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:58 · Score: 1

I will NEVER EVER, EVER, nomatter how necessary or ubiquitous or convenient, use Facebook for ANY PURPOSE, as a result of their shenanigans.
Coral the other 4/5ths ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:05 · Score: 0

Fuck that they can take my pron but they will never take my FREEEEEDOM!!
I don't want their product nor do I seem to have had a need for it during its entire life time.
Less, let's let facebook lead the way... by damn_registrars · 2015-02-26 09:53 · Score: 1

Then the third world can quickly become as woefully unproductive as the first world.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Just Don't Call It The Internet by Tokolosh · 2015-02-26 10:11 · Score: 1

Facebook can connect the world, I have no problem with that. But if they screw with anything they are not allowed to call it "internet".
May I suggest the All Obnoxious Liars system?
Same should apply to Net Neutrality - do anything except route packets and you lose common carrier status and the right to "internet". I offer this one-sentence regulation to the FCC for free.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
members only by swell · 2015-02-26 14:52 · Score: 1

As long as Fecebook blocks my access to their content, I doubt they really want to let more of the world on the internet. They want more in their proprietary corner of the internet. Others (non info-sharing, non-members ...) are not welcome.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
It is necessarily the case. by sabbede · 2015-02-27 01:43 · Score: 1

Benefits outweigh immediate downsides. And it will accelerate the resolution of conflicts that give rise to said downsides by throwing the root tensions into sharp relief, allowing for a faster collapse of the dialectic.