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.
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.
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)
I will NEVER EVER, EVER, nomatter how necessary or ubiquitous or convenient, use Facebook for ANY PURPOSE, as a result of their shenanigans.
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.
I don't understand why people always bring up 1984 when we're living in a Brave New World.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
"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
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...
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...
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.
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?
Yes.
Citations?
Citations?
Didn't think so...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.