Slashdot Mirror


Facebook's Colonies

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.

3 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Being disconnected might be good... by mi · · 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 governmentan 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 · · 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 mi · · 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.